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
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Since the start of the covid-19 outbreak, the Government have provided £160 billion of support through a range of schemes to protect jobs and help businesses keep going. We have also provided support to businesses through measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and the Business and Planning Bill. Working with business and trade unions, my Department has published detailed guidance to help businesses reopen safely.
Dr Hudson [V]
The Government’s support for people and businesses during the covid crisis has been fantastic and has helped countless constituents in Penrith and The Border and across the UK. Unfortunately, many have still not been able to access support, such as the newly self-employed, limited company directors, freelancers, new starters and those who fall on the wrong side of the eligibility criteria. Will my right hon. Friend work with the Treasury to see whether those hard-working people can be helped with some emergency financial support?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend will know that we have supported over 9 million jobs through the job retention scheme, 2.7 million people have benefited from the self- employment support scheme and around 870,000 small businesses have benefited from grants. The Chancellor set out his plan for jobs a few days ago. The key now is to get the economy up and running, so that businesses can trade.[Official Report, 1 September 2020, Vol. 679, c. 2MC.]
Ben Everitt
That is absolutely right, but it is not just about bouncing back; it is also about levelling up. Will the Secretary of State join my hon. Friend the Universities Minister in giving his backing in the spending review to the shovel-ready MK:U—a much needed technical university in Milton Keynes which will deliver cutting-edge science, technology and engineering jobs and skills for local employers?
Alok Sharma
As my hon. Friend would expect, the MK:U proposal will be judged objectively on its merits. More generally, I can confirm that the Government recognise the significant potential of the Oxford-Cambridge arc and the important role of Milton Keynes in achieving that potential.
Andy Carter
Airline pilots working for easyJet took an unprecedented decision on Friday to declare no confidence in their senior management. I have heard from many constituents who work at the airline in Liverpool and Manchester who are worried about the company’s approach of “fire and rehire on different terms”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that safety in the airline industry must always be paramount and that negotiations about future job losses should be respectful and in good faith?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Throughout the covid-19 period, the Government have provided unprecedented support for employment and worked in close partnership with the business community. I understand that it continues to be a difficult time for many businesses, but as he highlights, in that spirit of partnership, we expect all employers to treat their employees fairly and follow the rules.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I want to return the Secretary of State to the question asked by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) about the many businesses that are part of the 3 million ExcludedUK group. They include over 2 million people who are essentially self-employed but have been disqualified from help under the self-employment scheme for various—often arbitrary—reasons. In many cases, this is not simply rough justice but deep unfairness. Many of these individuals are not high earners. Will the Secretary of State give an indication that he recognises that this is an injustice, and can he tell us how he plans to address it?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that the Government have provided unprecedented support to businesses across the whole economy. As I said, the key right now is to support businesses to open, to get the economy up and running. That is the best way that we can support businesses across the United Kingdom.
Edward Miliband
This issue of 3 million people being excluded is not going away. Let me ask him about the winding down of the furlough scheme. Yesterday, Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation, said that a furlough extension was vital to prevent a “jobs bloodbath” in aerospace and automotive. We see the looming threat too in sectors that have not yet reopened, such as events and exhibitions, and those operating well below capacity, such as hospitality. Yet from next week, the Government are insisting that every single employer, whatever their industry, will have to start contributing to the furlough. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this decision to phase out the furlough, irrespective of circumstances, risks handing a P45 to hundreds of thousands of workers?
Alok Sharma
The furlough scheme will have been up and running for a full eight months, providing a huge amount of support for more than 9 million jobs. It is becoming more flexible and allowing people to return to work part time. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor has also set out the job retention bonus which, if it is taken up by all employers, will represent a £9 billion boost for the economy. I say to him again that the key is to get the economy up and running and to get businesses trading.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As we have heard, many businesses, sole traders, freelancers and others have been left without support throughout this health emergency. They are on their knees and they are still getting no support. How can they rebuild their trade when the Secretary of State’s Government will not help them? If his Government will not help them, why have they refused to allow simple adjustments to Scotland’s borrowing rules so that the Scottish Government can step in?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman talks about support in Scotland; like many colleagues in the House, I believe in the Union, and we must work together to support workers across the United Kingdom. More than 730,000 jobs have been protected in Scotland through the furlough scheme. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the additional moneys that the Chancellor announced at the summer statement, the total additional Barnett funding to Scotland since March is £4.6 billion.
Drew Hendry
Oh how the broad shoulders of the Union slump when asked a difficult question. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has exposed how the promised £800 million of consequentials for Scotland from the Chancellor’s job package is in fact only £21 million. Will the Secretary of State now do the right thing by Scotland’s businesses and urge the Chancellor to replace the missing £779 million—or has he also bought into the Prime Minister’s stated view that a pound spent in Croydon is of more value than a pound spent in Scotland?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman talks about supporting businesses in Scotland; perhaps he will come forward and give his support to the UK internal market White Paper that we have published.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The independent review of Horizon will provide a public summary of the failings that occurred at Post Office Ltd, which I hope will give postmasters the answers that they have been seeking all these years. It will also ensure that lessons are learned for the future.
Kate Osborne
Last month, the Government announced an independent review of the Post Office’s Horizon IT system scandal that led to hundreds of postmasters being fired, many going bankrupt and others even being imprisoned. The Post Office Horizon scandal will go down as one of the biggest civil injustices ever. To restore public confidence and bring justice to the many lives ruined, it is vital that each individual case is assessed and that rightful compensation is paid to all those affected. A judge-led public inquiry is the only answer; will the Minister commit to that now?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and her continued highlighting of the sub-postmasters’ situation. I hope to announce the chair of the review very soon so that we can start on it at pace in September.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice of our times: 20 years of reputations ruined, families torn apart and lives lost. Sub-postmasters were betrayed by a Post Office that so persecuted them that what compensation they have won has largely gone on legal fees, and they have now turned to the parliamentary ombudsman to investigate the full costs of a Government that failed
“to undertake its statutory duty of oversight”.
As we break for our summer holidays, will the Minister finally do the right thing and commit to a full, judge-led inquiry that will get to the bottom of the wrongs suffered and deliver both justice and compensation?
Paul Scully
The chairman or woman of the review will be announced in due course so that we can start the review of this injustice in September at pace. It is important that we speak to the Post Office, the Government, the sub-postmasters and other people, including at Fujitsu, to get to the bottom of this matter so that we can learn the lessons and move forward for the sub-postmasters of the future.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
This is the last Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions before recess and I want to place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and your staff for the incredible way that they have managed proceedings in the House.
It is Farnborough week and the Government are providing the aerospace industry and its aviation customers with more than £8.5 billion of support, including through UK Export Finance, the covid corporate financing facility, research grants and the job retention scheme. We are discussing further help with the sector.
Gavin Robinson
May I start by thanking the Minister for his personal engagement given some of the difficulties that we have had with the aerospace sector in Northern Ireland, and particularly with Bombardier in my constituency? Given that it is Farnborough Week, let me say that I read with interest the Minister’s comments yesterday on FlightGlobal in the question and answer session, and one of the missing components is the retention of key skills within this high-end engineering sector. Does the Minister accept that, without a clear, bespoke solution to support and sustain jobs beyond the cliff edge of October with the job retention scheme, the aerospace industry is facing a clear and present danger?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and for his comments about our engagement with the sector. We are supporting the aviation and aerospace sector with £8.5 billion and rising. If he looks at support from other countries, which we do, he will see that we will also consider further support as we progress, as the Chancellor has said, through the recovery.
Jane Stevenson
Wolverhampton North East is home to aerospace companies that have seen an unprecedented and sudden collapse of demand. Collins Aerospace is now sadly considering mass redundancies. What further support can the Government offer to limit job losses in Wolverhampton?
Nadhim Zahawi
We work with the whole aerospace industry. I am the co-chair of the Aerospace Growth Partnership. As well as access to the furlough scheme and the corporate finance scheme, the Secretary of State announced yesterday £400 million in further funding for research and development support for the sector to get to that Jet Zero flight. The Future Flight Challenge is already investing £300 million. We continue to work with the sector to make sure that those skill sets, that ecosystem that has been so brilliant at delivering an incredible industry in the UK, are maintained for the next three to five years, which is the timeline by which the sector looks to recover.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Minister, on behalf of my office, for his kind words.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating these virtual questions for the past few weeks, and long may they continue.
Although yesterday’s announcement was welcome, the Minister and I both know that nearly all the projects have been a long time in coming—from well before the current coronavirus crisis—so, in that sense, the funds announced yesterday were already priced in by the sector. In order to protect the aerospace jobs of today, as others have asked, which are highly skilled and in areas of the country that can ill afford to lose them, we really do need further urgent action today. Will the Minister say more than he has so far, which has been warm words but not much real action, to reassure those working in aerospace that their jobs will be protected in the coming months and years?
Nadhim Zahawi
I take issue with “warm words and no action” as £8.5 billion has been put to work to protect jobs and to protect the sector. It is great to see that, this week, Airbus has shown confidence in the UK with confirmation that the wings for its latest aircraft, the A321XLR, will be built in the UK at Broughton. That demonstrates our engagement not just with Airbus, but with Bombardier and with other major players in the market and, of course, the supply chain as well. We continue to put the support in place and to look at further support as we progress through the economic recovery.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Further to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 17 July, I am delighted that all close contact services will be able to resume from 1 August. We have taken a phased, cautious approach to reopening our economy, guided by the scientific and medical advice.
Catherine West
The close contact sector of the theatre is the one that I want to ask about, Minister. What action can the Government take to support local theatres such as Jacksons Lane, Upstairs at the Gatehouse and the Park Theatre? My constituents work in those theatres and, sadly, redundancy notices are going out. What can be done to save these jobs and protect another highly skilled sector?
Paul Scully
I totally understand, as Minister for London, that many theatres in the middle of London also require that support, but for provincial theatres around the country, we really do need to make sure that we can attract audiences back. That is why we are looking forward to working with theatre groups to have pilots for events so that when they are able to open, people can come safely and enjoy the performances that they have to offer.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Through the Business and Planning Bill, we are simplifying reliefs and the costs to cafés, pubs and restaurants of obtaining a licence to allow for outdoor dining. The Chancellor has also announced a six-month temporary VAT rate reduction from 20% to 5% for the hospitality, accommodation and attraction sectors. Both these measures should help to provide a welcome boost for business.
Suzanne Webb
My constituency is known for its culinary delights such as the fantastic Butterfingers Deli, and Balti Bazaar in Lye, not forgetting its equally fantastic independent local pubs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we encourage customers to get back to our pubs and restaurants to support our local economies and get our economic engines firing again?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to get out there supporting our pubs and restaurants. The Eat Out to Help Out scheme operating during August is another great incentive to support participating restaurants, cafés, pubs and other food establishments. Al fresco dining midweek in balmy August weather should be a must for all of us.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Hospitality workers who, in normal times, rely on tips as a significant part of their income have been especially hit, not just because their workplaces have been shut but because furlough payments have not recognised tip-based income. The Government have committed to bringing forward legislation to ensure that hospitality staff can keep their tips; indeed, it was a Conservative party manifesto commitment. When will that legislation be brought to the House?
Alok Sharma
The Chairman of the Select Committee raises a very important point. As he knows, we have had to bring forward a number of emergency Bills. However, I recognise the point he is making, and we will look to see the earliest point at which we might be able to bring that forward.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Prime Minister has made clear our intention to build back greener. We are taking action to deliver on that commitment, including through a commitment of over £3 billion to reduce emissions from our buildings across the UK, £800 million to promote carbon capture from power stations and industry, and a further £100 million being invested in R&D in direct air capture technologies.
Tom Randall
I am delighted that the Chancellor focused on creating green jobs in his summer economic update. Does my right hon. Friend agree that launching a multi-billion pound drive to improve the energy efficiency of homes will not only be good for creating jobs and driving us towards our net zero target but will save people money on their energy bills?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our £3 billion investment in energy efficiency could support up to 140,000 green jobs. The £2 billion green homes grant will upgrade over 600,000 homes, saving households up to £600 a year on their energy bills.
Janet Daby [V]
I agree that it is great to have jobs created. Insulating homes creates jobs across all regions of the UK, yet right now it is having the opposite effect. Labour has been contacted by insulation businesses who are experiencing cancelled work as clients now want to wait until September, when green homes grant money is available. Will the Minister fix this problem, and fix it now, by stating that jobs done in July and August can claim green homes grant funding in September?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady asks a very pertinent question. The Chancellor set out a £3 billion programme, and of course it will take time before that money is fully deployed. As well as the green homes upgrade, we have committed £320 million to the heat networks investment project, which is very relevant to the kind of work that she has described.
Rachael Maskell [V]
With the Government having committed to invest in the bioscience sector in York, making it the heart of the green new deal, they are now trying to make that conditional on a local government reorganisation that is not only deeply unpopular but is also, frankly, unworkable. In the light of comments that York’s economy will be the second-worst hit in the country, with unemployment rising to as high as 28%, will the Minister instead now bring forward that investment, to prevent mass unemployment in my city, to prevent unnecessary economic pain and to kick-start investment in green-collar jobs?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As the hon. Lady knows, we are absolutely committed to creating green-collar jobs. Today, we have 460,000 of those jobs across the UK; by 2030, we have stated our commitment to have 2 million such jobs. No one can deny our commitment to creating green jobs. I would further add that we are also committed to making the UK a science superpower, and we will make innovation central to our green recovery. That is absolutely front and centre of what the Government are trying to do.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Commenting on his own report back in 2017, Charles Hendry said,
“the evidence is clear that tidal lagoons can play a cost effective role in the UK’s energy mix”.
This Government still have not managed to back the oven-ready pathfinder tidal energy project in Swansea bay. When will they recognise the opportunities, the new green jobs and the inward investment support that tidal power can bring to Swansea, Wales and the rest of the UK?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We are absolutely committed, as the hon. Lady knows, to tidal power and all forms of marine power. There was a specific issue with the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project, which was that it was felt not to be economical. That was a specific, project-based, single incidence where we did not feel that it was value for taxpayers’ money.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
All we have right now, as far as energy efficiency for homes is concerned, is an announcement of a one-year scheme to provide vouchers for energy efficiency improvements in mostly lower priority properties, with no detail yet as to how that will work. The Minister simply did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about businesses in the field who are telling us that jobs are being lost now, because people are cancelling work in anticipation of those details, if and when they come out.
What we need for green recovery is a long-term programme that develops jobs and skills and really contributes towards low carbon energy efficiency improvements across all homes in England and Wales. When does the Minister intend to provide details of how the short-term plan will work and what is he doing to establish a proper long-term home energy efficiency programme on the back of that plan?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I will have slightly different views of what the Government are doing. I was surprised to hear him dismiss the £3 billion commitment. I remind him that green homes grants will deliver improvements to more than 650,000 homes, supporting 140,000 jobs in 2020-21. These are significant strides and a huge amount of money has been committed to that programme.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Government have provided clear advice on ventilation in our safer workplaces guide. We are led by the science in that work and, as the scientific and medical advice changes, the guidance will be updated to reflect that.
Geraint Davies [V]
The Minister should know that the science now shows that indoor air pollution dramatically increases coronavirus infection and death rates, and that masks inhibit the transmission of the virus. Will he today press to follow France’s lead to make compulsory mask-wearing the law in all indoor environments accessible by the public, and include indoor air pollution in the terms of the Environment Bill in September, in order to save lives and protect our NHS?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I said in my earlier answer, we are guided all the time by science and evidence and, as the science and evidence changes, we will calibrate our policy responses to that effect.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Around 90% of employees already have a statutory right to request homeworking as well as other forms of flexible working. We are now encouraging employers and employees to discuss how work can be done safely at home or in a covid-secure workplace.
Michael Fabricant
Well, a recent survey has shown that two thirds of people would prefer to work from home either full time or part time, rather than work all the time at the places they worked from pre-covid. With this change in attitudes, which means we will end up with less pollution and probably a better standard of living, what can the Government do, and what can she do, to encourage this type of working for those who want it?
Amanda Solloway
I am sure that my hon. Friend did not. We are aware of the wider benefits of flexible working. Nearly half of employees have worked from home during covid-19. Most employees already have the right to request flexible working, which employers can reject only for really sound business reasons. In our manifesto, we committed to take it further, and we will be looking at it in the light of covid.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
The Secretary of State and I hold regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the issue of business support, including on the schemes available to support Scottish businesses affected by the covid-19 pandemic.
Gavin Newlands
We are still waiting on the promised aviation sectoral support. Indeed, far from support, in my Adjournment debate the Minister essentially said that workers should be grateful that Rolls-Royce offered voluntary redundancy. Moreover, the Government have not acted to stop companies such as Menzies Aviation and Centrica following the deplorable fire-and-rehire tactics employed by British Airways, which are now being enforced. Will he tell the House whether he thinks it fair that an employer can force an employer on to reduced terms and conditions or face redundancy? Why is that illegal in so many European countries?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are in constant conversation with Rolls-Royce and other employers, quite rightly. The sector will be impacted for between three and five years. It is right that companies should be able to right-size their businesses and, as the Secretary of State referred to, have a constructive dialogue with their employees about how they arrive at that right size. The Government’s position is to support the industry with more than £8.5 billion of support through the covid pandemic.
Allan Dorans
Businesses in Scotland have thrived under devolution with the support of the Scottish Government, who are better able to provide tailored policies specifically for Scotland. An independent economics research organisation based at the University of Warwick published figures just yesterday that show that Brexit had already cost Scotland an estimated £736 a head last year alone. With uncertainty over future funding streams such as the so-called prosperity fund, which we were promised details of two years ago, how does he think that the greatest threat to devolution in its history—the current power-grab by Westminster—presents continued membership of the United Kingdom for business and the people of Scotland as a good option?
Nadhim Zahawi
I have weekly calls with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations, including the Minister for economy and fair work in Scotland. The most successful market is the UK internal market—that is without doubt. That is what the Scottish Government should support. It is a shame that my officials, working with officials from Northern Ireland and, of course, Wales, can move forward, yet the Scottish Government chose to withdraw their officials back in March. I urge my colleague from the SNP to ask the Scottish Government to reintroduce those officials to the system. We would thrive as a United Kingdom.
Stephen Flynn
To protect and rebuild the local economy of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, we need huge investment from the UK Government in the hydrogen economy, carbon capture and underground storage, and an energy transition zone all through an oil and gas sector deal. Will the Minister confirm that his Government intend to sign off an oil and gas sector deal this calendar year—yes or no?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is a manifesto commitment of this Government to deliver an oil and gas sector deal, and we are working with the sector. My brilliant colleague, the Minister with responsibility for energy, has been engaging constantly with the sector to ensure it can take the opportunities that are before it in offshore wind generation and all sorts of other areas. Of course, hydrogen will be incredibly important to the energy White Paper, which we will publish in the autumn, as the Secretary of State set out.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The Government are committed to making the UK a world-leading science superpower, and are increasing Government spending on R&D to £22 billion by 2024-25. We have announced seven successful projects from all four nations of the UK, which will receive £400 million of funding through our strength in places fund. Our ambitious R&D roadmap commits us to publishing a place strategy in the autumn that goes even further.
Mr Sheerman [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for all the work you have done to keep people like me engaged in the parliamentary process.
The Minister has a business background, so does she not realise that if she could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow Mrs Thatcher’s example and introduce a windfall profit tax on people who have made a lot of money—the gambling industry and companies such as Amazon—that could be ploughed into research and development? Universities will go through a tough time in the coming months and years, so let us put real resources into research and development as never before.
Amanda Solloway
I add my thanks to your team, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a taskforce that has been looking into how to support universities. It has enabled us to set up a stability fund, which will enable R&D to continue in our institutions. In addition, in the roadmap, which contains the place strategy, we are talking about lots of levelling up. We are making sure we have the opportunity to take this forward and become the science superpower that we all want to be.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
As the Prime Minister announced last week, from 1 October the Government intend to allow audiences to return to stadiums around the country. Conferences and other business events can also recommence in a covid-19 secure way, subject to the outcome of pilots.
Andy Slaughter
The Government are really missing the point on this. The thing about events, meetings, conferences, exhibitions and wedding receptions is that they are organised and regulated, and yet they are more constrained at the moment than pubs and restaurants. Rather than talk about pilots and permitted venues that are not defined in the guidance, will the Government look at a faster and fuller opening of the sector before October?
Paul Scully
We took evidence from a number of areas, including the wedding industry, and we have the “Safer Events: A Framework for Action” White Paper. All those people will feed into that discussion. Weddings are essentially parties, and we need to ensure that they can be regulated in a covid-19-secure way. I will meet the wedding industry associations again tomorrow to continue discussions in this area.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The Government are now implementing their ambitious R&D roadmap, published earlier this month, reaffirming our commitment to increasing public R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024-25 and ensuring the UK is the best place for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs to live and work.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate the recent announcements, but can the Minister reassure us that all universities will be able to access those loans, with freedom to invest in line with local priorities? Will she take a look at the proposals from the new Whittle laboratory in Cambridge, which needs to match the already secure £23.5 million in private sector funding to develop the first long-haul zero-carbon passenger aircraft?
Amanda Solloway
I give my assurance that one of the things we are addressing in the roadmap is ensuring that we become a science superpower. Within that, we are levelling up across the whole of the country. I am committed to making the workplace diverse and ensuring that we have a culture that embraces that throughout the whole of country. We will ensure that UK scientists are appreciated and rewarded.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The Government have provided unprecedented support to businesses and individuals. We are doubling the number of jobcentre work coaches, spending £32 million to recruit National Careers Service careers advisers and creating hundreds of thousands of new subsidised jobs for young people throughout the UK.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister for her answer, but my question is about the job retention scheme and employment levels. Given that some employers will be paid to retain workers who are never going to be made redundant, some of the job retention bonus scheme will be a dead loss. Would it not be a more effective use of public money to use some of these funds to continue to pay the wages of workers hardest hit and to provide some support to some of the 3 million households that have been excluded throughout this crisis from any help from this Government?
Amanda Solloway
We are giving a whole range of support to everybody, as the hon. Member will know, through a lot of schemes. In fact, 9.4 million jobs have been supported through the coronavirus job retention scheme. As the scheme winds down, we will be making it more flexible so that people can return to work part time. We are also offering £1,000 to employers for each furloughed employee who is kept on until the end of January 2021.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
The Government are investing £93 million to set up the UK’s first dedicated Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre in Harwell. We are also investing £38 million in a rapid deployment facility, which will allow vaccine manufacturing at scale to commence from later this year.
Simon Fell
The Government have stated that they are interested in creating a sovereign manufacturing capability in the north. An opportunity exists in Ulverston in my constituency to build a bioscience cluster, with deep collaboration with local universities. Using this site for therapeutic vaccine manufacturing would enable partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, which is already based in Furness, and it would preserve and create local jobs and skills, and be a great result for the north and the UK as a whole. Would my right hon. Friend meet the key partners to this project to see whether we might be able to take it forward?
Alok Sharma
I want to confirm that the Government of course continue to consider the options to ensure that we have sufficient vaccine manufacturing capacity in the UK. I will ask the vaccine taskforce to follow up on that issue with my hon. Friend.
Mary Robinson
For many of my constituents who work in Greater Manchester life sciences and in the Cheshire life sciences corridor, the Government’s drive to increase research and development into vaccines is really important. Recognising the importance of this to our local economy, what are the Government doing to increase and develop the strengths of life sciences in the Greater Manchester area?
Alok Sharma
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, of course, the Government strongly support the growth of the life sciences sector in the north-west, which employs about 26,000 people. We have made a significant strategic investment in the Medicines Discovery Catapult at Alderley Edge to boost R&D.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
In consultation with businesses, business representative groups, trade unions, Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive, my Department has published comprehensive workplace guidance to ensure businesses can operate in a covid-secure manner, keeping both their workers and customers as safe as possible.
Sir David Evennett [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and welcome the work that he and his Department are doing to help businesses during this challenging time. However, what support is being given to the self-employed across the country?
Alok Sharma
As my right hon. Friend will know, 2.7 million self-employed people have accessed over £7.8 billion of grants from self-employed income support scheme. The scheme has been extended, and individuals will be able to claim a second and final grant when the scheme reopens for applications on 17 August.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Secretary of State for finding a way to reopen the beauty sector, which employs so many women across the country. When I paid a visit to the Malvern Spa to celebrate its reopening last weekend, I was told that it has capacity now for only 15 spa days, rather than 40, because of the square footage rules that his Department has set out. Will he look urgently at reviewing those, because it is a very spacious premises?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for her acknowledgement of the work we have been doing. The key has been to open businesses safely and securely in a cautious and phased manner, and we will continue to do that.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
The coronavirus vaccine taskforce set up in my Department under the excellent leadership of its chair, Kate Bingham, has been making good progress. The Government have supported the vaccines being developed at Oxford University and Imperial College and have now secured access to three different vaccine classes, as well as a treatment containing covid-19 neutralising antibodies. We are also investing, as I said earlier, in vaccine manufacturing capacity in the UK, and the taskforce is doing all it can to ensure that the United Kingdom gets access to a safe and effective vaccine as soon as possible.
John Spellar
Well, that is a very welcome announcement, but I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the tsunami of job losses now facing us. What industry needs right now is orders to get the lines running. That is not just for the big companies, but the whole supply chain. Does he accept the role of Government, not just as regulator and funder, but also as customer? Too often, the public sector, the civil service, local government and the police, fire and ambulance have, frankly, let British industry and British workers down, claiming they are bound by so-called EU rules. Now we are coming out of the EU, will he get going, shake up the civil service, put British industry first, get the orders out there and get the production lines moving?
Alok Sharma
I do not think there is much more to say. The right hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are, as he knows, determined to ensure the rapid expansion of the offshore wind manufacturing supply chain. We have committed to 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, and I fully agree with him that the north-east region is critical to that development. I know the project to which he is referring, and officials and myself are looking closely at its viability.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The non-payment of the national minimum wage in Leicester garment factories was shocking, but unfortunately unsurprising. Exploitation in the garment industry has been extensively reported for years, including in a 2019 Environmental Audit Committee report. The cases we know about are likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Given that these abusive working practices are not only criminal, but a threat to public health, will the Secretary of State tell the House what steps he has taken to escalate enforcement in light of the covid-19 pandemic?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point, and I think we have all been appalled by what we have read and heard. He will know that the National Crime Agency is leading investigations right now into the current set of allegations. He will also know that a pilot operation was run in autumn 2018, bringing together a whole range of agencies. In the past 18 months, there have been more than 200 investigations. I confirm to him that the enforcement of the minimum wage is something that HMRC investigates, and in 2019-20 it has issued across the country 1,000 penalty notices.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend will know, in June 2020 we announced a support package to enable universities to continue their vital research. Universities will be required to use some of that funding for research normally funded by medical research charities. We are continuing to look at this situation and we hope to engage closely with charities to develop an even more robust package.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, and I or one of my fellow Ministers would be happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in commending Tom Hunt and Baggy for their pioneering work. She knows that tackling carbon emissions and improving air quality go hand in hand. We are taking action to address both, particularly with the 300,000 ultra low emission vehicles registered in the UK, and we are also providing new funding for vehicle charging infrastructure.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this issue and I share a lot of his concerns, but it is wrong to suggest that we are not doing anything. From autumn this year, we are providing a package of low-interest loans with long payback periods, supplemented by a small element of grant, to cover up to 80% of the universities’ income losses from international students. The money that is being pumped into our further education deals precisely with the point that he raised, and we are continuing to do that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course we recognise the valiant contribution that the sector makes to the UK economy. We are working closely with the sector to pilot the reopening of conference centres, with a view to full socially distanced reopening from 1 October, subject of course to continuing to make progress.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
Bounce-back loans have been a big success; more than 1 million have been approved for businesses. If the hon. Lady has specific issues that she wishes to raise about businesses in her constituency, she should write to me.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because it goes to the heart of what we are doing as a Government. We already have more than 460,000 UK jobs in low-carbon businesses and their supply chains. Those are green-collar jobs and our research and development is totally committed to expanding those opportunities, whereby we want to reach 2 million green jobs by 2030. It is my conviction that coastal communities such as the one he represents will fully benefit and be in a place where they can reap the rewards of our investment in the green economy.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the key importance of the aviation sector, and the Government are supporting aerospace and its aviation customers with more than £8.5 billion, as part of our measures to support the overall economy. I understand that Airbus has drawn down £500 million on the corporate finance facility, and of course the Secretary of State and the ministerial team are happy to engage with him and his constituents on this important matter.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Alok Sharma
I already have one week of holiday plans and not in her constituency, sadly, but we all need to get out there to visit pubs and restaurants and cafés, which are the heart of our communities. From what I have seen, they are very much adhering to the covid-secure guidance, and that is how we will all enjoy summer safely.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have been supporting the economy across the United Kingdom, to the tune of £160 billion of additional funding announced by the Chancellor. If the hon. Gentleman would like to engage with my ministerial team on particular issues, I would be very happy about that.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Alok Sharma
Like my hon. Friend, I am a firm believer in the Union—in one United Kingdom. The proposals we set out in the UK Internal Market White Paper are all about supporting jobs, protecting businesses and livelihoods, and encouraging investment across the whole UK. I hope that all colleagues across the House will write in support of that as part of the consultation.
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.
BBC
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on changes to the licence fee exemptions, programming and job losses at the BBC.
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) on obtaining this urgent question and demonstrating that persistence pays off.
The BBC has for decades played a vital role in this country’s cultural and civic life, and that has never been more true than during the last few months. During an unprecedented global crisis, it has helped to counter disinformation and share factual information about the coronavirus pandemic, while reinforcing important public health messaging. It has been a constant source of entertainment. It has helped to fundraise for charities through “The Big Night In”, which the Government match funded pound for pound, and it has helped countless families across the UK to educate their children from home through services such as BBC Bitesize.
The BBC has also been a source of comfort to many during this pandemic, and none more so, perhaps, than those elderly citizens who have been forced to shield and stay at home and who are sadly most at risk of experiencing loneliness and isolation as they do so. That is why we welcomed the BBC’s initial decision at the beginning of the lockdown to continue to grant the licence fee concession to the over-75s, and it is why we were deeply disappointed when the BBC board announced earlier this month that it would be ending that concession from 1 August. As a result, four out of five of those previously eligible for a free TV licence will now need to pay. That is a decision for the BBC, but the Government regret the approach that it has taken.
In the 2015 funding settlement—a settlement that was widely considered to be a generous one and which the director-general said was a strong deal for the BBC—we agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the over-75s concession would transfer to it in June 2020. The BBC agreed to have both the policy decision and the funding responsibility. That reform was subject to public discussion and debated extensively during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017. During those discussions and the passage of that legislation, Parliament agreed that the future of the over-75 concession and how and when it would be implemented was entirely a matter for the BBC.
The Government’s view is that the BBC should be doing more, given the generous settlement that it received. During the 2015 settlement, we gave the BBC a number of things in return for taking on this responsibility. We closed the iPlayer loophole. We committed to increasing the licence fee in line with inflation, and we reduced a number of other BBC spending commitments. To help with financial planning, we agreed to provide phased transitional funding over two years to gradually introduce the cost to the BBC.
It is now essential that the BBC, having taken the decision to end the concession, gets the implementation of the change right and is not heavy-handed in its approach. While lockdown may be easing, older people across the country still face many challenges and still rely on their TV as much as they did a few weeks ago. The BBC can and should therefore do more to support older people, and it should look urgently at how it can use its substantial licence fee income to support older people and deliver for UK audiences of all ages.
As the national broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to represent all of the nation—both its youngest and oldest citizens, no matter where they live—and I am aware that many people have expressed concerns about cuts to regional programming as well as the BBC’s recent announcement of staffing reductions. Let me be clear that both operational and editorial decisions are a matter for the BBC. It is an independent body and the Government rightly have no say over the day-to-day decisions that it makes on programming, staffing or the administration of the licence fee, but as I have said, including during a recent Adjournment debate, the Government believe that the BBC must represent all of Britain. We set clear targets for news and current affairs and the need to represent all parts of the UK and the charter as part of the BBC’s mission and public purposes. It is for the BBC to meet these and Ofcom to hold it to account on doing so. That means engaging and reporting on local issues across our diverse communities, not just reflecting the views of the metropolitan bubbles of London and Manchester.
While the BBC remains operationally and editorially independent from the Government, we will continue to push it on these issues so that we can ensure that the BBC remains closer to the communities that it serves.
Mr Speaker
I just say to the Minister that that should have been three minutes, and he has taken five.
Daisy Cooper
The BBC licence fee exists to give the BBC protection from political interference. The BBC should not be making decisions on welfare. That is the role of the Government. Last year, the BBC chairman said that
“the licence fee is at the heart of what we do. It establishes a direct relationship between us and the public and makes absolutely clear that our job is to serve them”—
and yet here we are.
From 1 August, the BBC will fund free licences only for people over 75 who receive pension credit, but two-fifths of people who are entitled to the benefit—about 1.2 million pensioners—are not receiving it. Some do not know how to claim, many struggle to apply and others feel embarrassed about requiring help. Is the BBC really to become a de facto arm of the Department for Work and Pensions?
Let us be absolutely clear about how we have ended up here. It was the Conservative Government who took the decision in 2015 to stop funding for free licences, and it was the Conservative Government who forced responsibility on to the BBC board to make the decision on the future of the concession. The Government should never have asked the BBC to take that on, and the BBC should never have accepted it. Continuing with the licence fee scheme for the over-75s would have cost £745 million—a fifth of the BBC’s budget. To meet that cost without Government funding, the BBC would have had to close all of the following: BBC 2, BBC 4, the BBC News channel, BBC Scotland, Radio 5 live and local radio stations, as well as many other cuts and reductions. As it happens, the means-tested scheme will still cost the BBC about £250 million, and to help meet that cost it has recently announced hundreds of job losses and programming cuts.
The BBC has proved invaluable to the British public during the covid lockdown through its trusted news, entertainment and home schooling resources. Does the Minister agree? Age UK says that it firmly believes it is the Government’s responsibility to look after vulnerable older people, not the BBC’s. Age UK also thinks the Government should take back responsibility for a benefit that was introduced to tackle pensioner poverty. Will he do that? The Conservative Government have been responsible for these secret deals with the BBC that have significantly diminished its ability to serve the British public, so when the licence fee negotiations start in earnest next year, will he commit to a wholly transparent process involving Ofcom?
Mr Whittingdale
The decisions taken at the time of the licence fee settlement in 2015 were the result of lengthy negotiations with the BBC, in which it received a number of concessions that it strongly asked for. In return for those, it agreed that it would take on responsibility for the maintenance of the over-75s free TV licence concession. It was up to the BBC how it decided to take that forward. A number of options were suggested and consulted on by the BBC. The Government were disappointed, as I say, that it decided to remove the concession completely. There were a number of other ways it could have addressed it that would have saved the BBC money but would have at least maintained some help for those aged over 75. But, as I said, that was a matter for the BBC. Obviously, we will continue to discuss it with the BBC. In particular, we will be having discussions over the next licence fee settlement in 2022. We will ensure that there is an opportunity for Ofcom, and others, to have an input into that, but that is still some way off. In the meantime, as somebody who was responsible for those negotiations, I believed the licence fee settlement was a good outcome. The BBC made public the fact that it thought it was a good outcome, too.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
This crisis has shown that local programming is more important than ever, both for essential information and for closeness of community. Is it not now vital that quality TV and radio at a local level remains at the heart of BBC output, including through programmes such as the 6.30 regional news, “Politics South” and “Inside Out”, in all regions?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The charter of the BBC makes it plain, as one of the five public purposes, that it is the responsibility of the BBC to reflect, represent and serve the diverse community of the UK’s nations and regions. Ofcom, as he knows, lays down a number of requirements on the BBC and, indeed, on other public service broadcasters, as to how it does that. It is up to the BBC. I have made it clear before, and I do so again today, that I regard the BBC’s news and current affairs reporting of events taking place outside London and in the regions as an absolutely central part of the BBC’s purpose. I very much hope that it will continue to bear that in mind.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) on securing this urgent question, which goes to the heart of Members’ concerns about cuts to BBC funding, and the breaking of a promise to millions of pensioners and their families. This issue goes back to the charter and licence fee settlement that was made with the Conservative Government in 2015, when the Government made the BBC an offer it could not refuse: “Take on responsibility for paying the licence for the over-75s, or we will slash funding even further and consider removing the licence fee altogether.”
Since then, in this licence period alone, the BBC has lost £800 million in funding, even before bearing the cost of licences for the over -75s. Members may ask why the BBC accepted the settlement. Is it merely a coincidence that the then chair of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead, was later elevated to a peerage as the noble Baroness Fairhead, and took the Conservative Whip a short time later?
The Conservatives made a manifesto promise to maintain the licence for the over-75s. They broke it. Instead, they passed responsibility to the BBC, knowing that it would never be able to afford that responsibility. Since then, they have tried to blame the BBC at every turn, for every cut of every service, and for every redundancy. No doubt they will try to blame the BBC when bills start landing on pensioners’ doorsteps in August and September.
The Conservative Government themselves were party to this deal, so does the Minister not accept that the Government should own some of the blame? Can the Minister tell the House, as the hon. Lady asked, why the BBC should be responsible for implementing the Government’s social policy?
Cuts to the BBC, as everyone in this Chamber knows, are not merely about spending; they are about undermining the corporation’s independence. The Conservative Government are, at best, relaxed about reducing the BBC’s budget, because it is the only lever they have to control the BBC’s capacity to ask tough questions on behalf of the British people.
Ministers knew that making the BBC shoulder that responsibility in full would lead to cuts equivalent to the closures of BBC2, BBC4, the news channel, the Scotland channel, Radio 5 live and Sports Extra, and a number of local stations. Indeed, the cuts to BBC news reporting and all the redundancies in local and national news, at a time of national crisis, when the BBC is more valued and essential than ever, are a direct result of the Government’s failure to maintain their election promises.
The Minister will have seen evidence from Age UK, detailing how millions of pensioners have relied on their televisions for company, especially during the pandemic. What advice would he give to a pensioner who will face the heart-breaking choice in the coming months between turning off their TV for good, or forgoing other basics such as food or heating? That is the reality of the Government’s broken promise to 4 million pensioner households.
Mr Whittingdale
I remind the hon. Gentleman that at the time of the licence fee settlement in 2015, the Government were still having to put right the mess that they had inherited, due to the financial profligacy of the previous Labour Government. Everybody had to play a part in that, and the BBC was included. It was a tough negotiation. I call tell the hon. Gentleman— I was part of the negotiations—that Baroness Fairhead strongly argued the case for the BBC, and the outcome was satisfactory to the BBC and the Government, as was made clear by the BBC at that time. The manifesto commitment to maintaining the licence fee during the 2015 Parliament was maintained, which is why the exemption is only now being removed in 2020.
Any pensioner on a low income will continue to get a free TV licence if they are in receipt of pension credit. Age UK has rightly drawn attention to the fact that quite a number of pensioners do not receive pension credit, even though they are entitled to do so, and one of the consequences of this move, which the Government would welcome, might be an increase in the take-up of pension credit.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. He has always spoken sensitively about this subject and has great experience. He will be aware that the BBC received a generous settlement of about £200 million, whereas the concession for pension credits will cost £250 million, and to keep things as they are would cost £750 million, so we are well aware that the BBC was not fully funded. Returning to regional news, the concerns that I and many Members have is that many of our constituents rely on regional news to deliver locally for them, and 450 out of 3,000 jobs are at risk of being lost. Does the Minister agree that if the BBC wants to win friends in this place, it should look after the regions?
Mr Whittingdale
I thank my hon. Friend. He is right about the cost of maintaining free TV licences for all over-75s, which is already approaching £750 million and would go on rising. Any Government—and, indeed, the corporation—were going to have to consider that. On his point about regional programming, as we made clear in the recent debate held by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), it is a matter for the BBC, but regional programming is essential. I am pleased that some of the fears expressed about cuts to regional political and current affairs coverage did not materialise, but I am still concerned at the level of cuts that are taking place, and we will be watching carefully to ensure that the BBC continues to fulfil its obligations on regional coverage.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Tory Ministers’ feigned shock at BBC job cuts and at old people being pursued for TV licence payments is nothing but humbug. Everyone knew that this would be the result of the last charter deal, cooked up by the Government and BBC director-general Tony Hall. The Government demanded that free TV licences for the over-75s—which should be a social provision—be funded by the BBC, and the BBC was unwise enough to knuckle under and accept. The BBC could not afford it, and I warned at the time that it would lead to swingeing BBC job losses and pensioners being pursued through the courts for licence payments—a double whammy of cruelty, especially during covid. Lord Hall is off to another lavishly paid job, but pensioners across the country will have to find the cash to pay for licences they cannot afford, while hundreds of staff at the BBC now face redundancy as a direct result of this dreadful Tory deal. The Government need to take back control of pensioner licence provision. Will they do so?
Mr Whittingdale
First, there were a number of options available to the BBC for how to reduce the costs of the over-75s exemption. The BBC chose to abolish it in its entirety, but there were options, including providing it at a later age, reducing it to a proportion of the licence fee or restricting it to households that only contained over-75-year-olds. It has always seemed to me extraordinary that a banker at Goldman Sachs who happens to have his grandmother living in his home can claim a free TV licence. There were a number of options, and I personally regret that the BBC chose to go ahead with the total abolition. The hon. Gentleman talked about hard-up pensioners. Pensioners on low incomes will continue to receive a free TV licence if they are in receipt of pension credit, so those who are most likely to be unable to afford it will not be required to pay.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Last month, senior executives at the BBC took it upon themselves to remove episodes of “Little Britain” and other comedies from its iPlayer platform because of concerns that some characters might now be considered to be offensive. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anger of fans of these programmes that executives at their state broadcaster whose salaries they pay have made this censorious decision and effectively made a value judgment about them for continuing to enjoy those programmes?
Mr Whittingdale
That is a matter for the BBC, obviously, but I share my hon. Friend’s surprise that the BBC decided that “Little Britain” was so unacceptable. Certain programmes that were extremely popular in the ’60s, for instance, would now be regarded as wholly unacceptable, which not just the BBC but all of us need to remain sensitive to, but there is a risk that removing certain programming that is still widely enjoyed—it was even suggested to me at one stage that “Fawlty Towers” might be removed because it gave offence to people—is taking political correctness too far.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The announcement of further job cuts at the BBC is yet another blow for public service broadcasting. There are many BBC freelance workers in Vauxhall with jobs on important TV and radio shows. Some of them have had long-term contracts with the BBC for many years, and they are taxpayers and licence fee payers, but they have not benefited from the same support that other taxpayers have rightly received from the Government, simply because of the type of contract they are on. As a result, many are contemplating leaving the media industry altogether, which in my view is a tragic loss of talent and experience. Given the immense challenges these freelancers face, will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor and persuade him to fill the gaps and end the one-size-fits-all approach to withdrawing these schemes?
Mr Whittingdale
In the case of the BBC, the majority of its staff are of course paid with public money and therefore were not eligible for furlough, but there are some BBC employees who work for the commercial arm, some of whom were furloughed, and, as the hon. Lady says, there are a number of freelancers. The Government have sought to provide support to freelancers through the self-employment income support scheme, and of course for those who fall outside that there is the availability of universal credit. Nevertheless, I am aware that there are a number of freelance workers, not just for the BBC but across the media, who are finding it difficult, and of course we continue to look to see what help can be given to them.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC needs to look urgently at how it can use its substantial licence fee income to support older people and to deliver for audiences of all age groups?
Mr Whittingdale
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to bear in mind that although the BBC is under financial pressure like many other organisations, it benefits from the licence fee and other income to the tune of around £5 billion. It is certainly the case that there are ways of achieving efficiencies and savings in the spending of that budget, which would perhaps have meant that some of the more difficult decisions, such as the removal of free licences for the over-75s, could at least have been mitigated.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Research by the Library has revealed that more than 3,000 households in my constituency may lose access to their free TV licence as a result of the Government’s deal with the BBC. The charity Age UK described axing the free TV licence as
“a kick in the teeth for millions of over 75s who have had a torrid time during this crisis.”
What message does the Minister have for pensioners forced to take difficult decisions between their television and other essentials such as food and heating?
Mr Whittingdale
I would say to anybody facing that kind of choice that they will almost certainly be entitled to pension credit, and if they are not currently in receipt of it, they should perhaps look to see whether they are eligible to receive it. It is the case that a number of pensioners on low incomes do not currently receive it. One of the consequences of this is that the BBC will write to every single one of the over-75s to inform them that they are potentially still eligible for a free TV licence if they are on pension credit, so this will perhaps be the best marketing tool for pension credit that we have ever seen.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Many of my constituents and people across Lincolnshire are dismayed at the BBC’s decision to scrap free licences for the over-75s. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that he has engaged with the BBC and made those concerns very clear on behalf of many of our constituents?
Mr Whittingdale
I do not think the BBC will have been in any doubt about the Government’s view. I and the Secretary of State have regular discussions with the chairman and the director-general. I fully recognise that this was a very difficult choice for the BBC—it represented a massive amount of money to maintain free TV licences in their entirety—but, as I said earlier, I think there were other options available that would have made this at least a little less painful for those who now are going to be required to pay the full cost of the TV licence, having previously not had to pay anything at all.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Government have been completely disingenuous about this issue all along. Let us be honest: the BBC was given no choice but to take on responsibility for TV licences. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) is absolutely right: the Government should not be outsourcing their welfare policy or, indeed, their manifesto promises to the BBC. Funding for the BBC’s UK public services is now around 24% less in real terms than if the cost of the licence fee had risen with inflation from 2010, and the BBC is facing £800 million of cuts. Given all that, does the Minister seriously expect that the BBC would be able to keep funding free TV licences for all over-75s? Can he tell us that with a straight face?
Mr Whittingdale
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the BBC asked for a number of concessions—the unfreezing of the licence fee, to which he referred, the closing of the iPlayer loophole and other saving reductions —that resulted in its income increasing. The cost of giving free TV licences to those aged over 75, which was introduced only in 2008, was rising inexorably and would soon be approaching £1 billion. I have to ask all Opposition Members whether, if they believe that the free TV licences should continue, they are committing that a future Labour Government, or even a future Liberal Democrat Government, might one day pay to restore them, at a cost, by then, of well over £1 billion.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
May I compliment you on your choice of tie, Mr Speaker? Barrow Raiders will be delighted.
Simon Fell
I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues who have raised the prospect of job cuts at regional news services. At a time when local media are struggling, we need trusted local news services, which keep places such as Cumbria informed, provide companionship and hold those in power to account. In a place like Cumbria, any cuts will fall disproportionately on the excellent local teams, because there are so few people there already. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that salami-slicing such organisations will help no one, including the BBC if it wants to meet its public service remit?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have discussed the proposed reductions with the director for England and the director of nations and regions for the BBC. It is obviously a matter for them, but in my view although the BBC may have to find savings across its budget, that does not mean that every area of expenditure should be reduced. There are areas in which the BBC could save more and there are areas where any cuts would have a damaging effect. I fear that regional coverage is in that latter category, so the BBC should prioritise it. We will continue to make that clear to the BBC.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Almost 3,500 pensioner households in my constituency of Dundee West will be dramatically affected by the loss of TV licences. These are pensioners who receive one of the worst pensions in Europe, are likely to suffer from loneliness and disabilities, and are shielding as a result of covid-19. Surely this pandemic has shown us that television is not a luxury and the UK Government must recognise their public health responsibility to ensure that everyone receives vital information. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the UK Government will reverse the decision and provide the financial support to allow the concession to continue for those who can least afford it?
Mr Whittingdale
As I say, the matter was extensively debated during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017, and it was Parliament that agreed that the responsibility should be transferred to the BBC, so that is not likely to be reversed. It is a matter for the BBC as to how it goes about this. The Government are disappointed and believe that alternative options were available. I encourage the pensioners in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to check whether they are entitled to receive pension credit and therefore to maintain a free TV licence. The exemption was introduced only 12 years ago, at an age that was relatively arbitrary at the time; it did not need to be set at that age and that is something else that the BBC might have considered.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My constituents are dismayed at the BBC’s decisions in respect of licences for over-75s and the proposed cuts to local coverage. Does the Minister agree that after having so recently received that “strong deal” in the renegotiation, the BBC ought to have raised this issue before it was three years into the period if it was not intending to continue with the obligations it has set out?
Mr Whittingdale
To give the BBC some credit, it did hold quite a lengthy consultation in which it put forward a number of options as to the future of the exemption. In my view, some of those other options were greatly preferable to the one that the BBC finally chose, which was the decision to abolish it in its entirety. I think the BBC could have done more. I am at least assured that the BBC has now said that every person over 75 who currently has a free TV licence will receive a letter: first, to point out that they can still receive one if they are on pension credit, and secondly, to say that no action will be taken in pursuit of the BBC’s requiring a licence until after those letters have been dispatched and received.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question today, Mr Speaker. The TV licence and the services provided by the BBC have been a lifeline to many in my constituency of Newport West in recent months. Can the Minister tell me what discussions have taken place with the Welsh Government in recent weeks to ensure that Welsh regional programmes are maintained and my constituents are not penalised by the shabby approach to public broadcasting from this Government?
Mr Whittingdale
It is not a devolved matter. However, I did have an extremely good conversation this morning with Rhodri Williams, the new chair of S4C, which of course also benefits from the licence fee.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I know you are a man who likes to Netflix and chill, Mr Speaker, but with the rise of on-demand services such as Amazon Prime and Netflix, is it still right that we are criminalising non-payment of the fee for the BBC?
Mr Whittingdale
As my hon. Friend is aware, the issue of decriminalisation has been subject to a lengthy consultation. The Government are now considering the very large number of responses to that consultation and we will bring forward our proposals once we have completed that consideration.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister called on the BBC to do more to support older people, but perhaps he should start by putting his own house in order. More than 1 million of the poorest pensioners missed out on £2.5 billion of pension credit in 2017-18 and now they will not get a free TV licence either. Instead of his crocodile tears about the cuts that the Government have forced on the BBC, will the Minister be asking the BBC to run regular public information announcements at peak times, encouraging people to apply for pension credit?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Lady raises a good point, in that some of the communications that the BBC had promised to carry out are now going to be impossible due to social distancing, so we will be looking to the BBC to run public information campaigns of that kind. As I said, the BBC is also sending a letter to every single person over 75, telling them what their options are.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is being asked to simultaneously ensure that the BBC spends more money on free licences and more money on programmes. Not only is that mathematically incompatible, it is not within his power at all. Does he agree that the real welfare issue is to ensure that poorer pensioners continue to receive the benefits of the BBC, which are important to many of them, and that therefore the practical way to help poorer pensioners is for both the BBC and Members of Parliament to ensure that as many as possible of those who are entitled to pension credit actually claim pension credit?
Mr Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend will know from the many times that he has stood here that being asked to do impossible, contradictory things is quite frequent. The point he makes is absolutely right. It is very important that all those people entitled to pension credit should take it up and I believe that one of the consequences of this matter is that that will be achieved.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
More than 4,000 households in my constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth no longer qualify for a free TV licence. That is nearly three out of four over-75-year-olds. There is a theme in the questions. We have already heard that more than 1 million pensioners eligible for pension credit do not claim it. Instead of hand-wringing and saying it is other people’s jobs to do it, what will the Minister do to ensure that those people who are eligible for pension credit receive it?
Mr Whittingdale
The Government seek to publicise pension credit availability as widely as possible, but the BBC has now said that it will write a letter to every single pensioner over 75 and I think that will have a greater effect in driving up pension credit than any other measure.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The coronavirus pandemic has meant that many of my constituents in North West Durham, particularly those shielding, many of whom are elderly, have been increasingly reliant on the television over the last few months. This weekend, I joined with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) in calling on the BBC to look again at this cancellation for the over-75s. Will the Minister join us in that call today?
Mr Whittingdale
As I have said, the Government deeply regret the decision that was taken. I hope that the BBC will continue to consider it as we move into the next licence fee settlement. Obviously, discussions will take place around that, and we will look at what other options might be available to try to extend help not just to those aged over 75, but to other people as well, but that ultimately will be a matter for negotiation with the BBC.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The award-winning BBC programme “Inside Out” highlighted the devastating impact of mesh implants, without which this scandal could have gone on undiscovered for much longer. Now “Inside Out” is under threat. Does the Minister understand the link between the BBC’s rising costs and income cuts and the loss of high-quality local BBC journalists?
Mr Whittingdale
I share the hon. Lady’s admiration for “Inside Out”, which, as she said, did some extremely hard-hitting investigative programmes, which led to real change. I am encouraged that the BBC is maintaining “Inside Out” and is moving from, I think, three stories per episode to one story per episode over a longer time, so it will be a 30-minute programme. It is good that “Inside Out” will continue, but obviously any reduction in investigative journalism by the BBC is a matter of regret.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC could have the capacity to make significant savings to its £5 billion of spend a year, and does he agree that greater transparency would go a long way to help identify those savings? A Government Department or a local authority needs to publish every invoice in excess of £500. Is it not wholly unfair and iniquitous that the BBC has simply refused to do that?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, there is scope for efficiencies and savings. One thing that the Government have done is fully open up the BBC to scrutiny by the National Audit Office, and I think that that has led to some efficiencies. I am encouraged by the conversation that I had very recently with the incoming new director-general, Tim Davie, who recognises that there is scope to seek efficiency savings and is committed to looking across the whole range of BBC activities to see how that can be achieved.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister rightly recognises the BBC’s amazing covid service. I just want to put on record how invaluable BBC Bitesize has been to my six-year-old daughter and my long-suffering husband who has been home schooling her through the lockdown. Does the Minister recognise that the BBC is part of a much wider ecosystem in which it commissions a lot of independent production companies? We know that the creative sector is really suffering and that many jobs are in jeopardy, and does he recognise, therefore, that this continued pressure on BBC funding will put that wider revival of the creative arts sector, in terms of the independent sector, at risk?
Mr Whittingdale
I join the hon. Lady in thanking the BBC for all that it did to maintain educational programming during lockdown. As for the contribution that it makes to the independent production sector, she is also absolutely right. One thing that I have been concentrating on is trying to help the production sector get back into operation, and we have had frequent meetings with representatives to see how that can be achieved. I am delighted that most productions are now getting going again, but obviously maintaining and sustaining our production sector right across the country will remain a very important additional role for the BBC.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Over recent years, I would describe myself as having moved from being a friend of the BBC to being an extremely critical friend of the BBC, and I tend to think that, to some extent, it has lost its way. The director-general has today replied to a letter sent by the Blue Collar Conservatives group, in which he says that
“we will continue to deliver new programmes that represent and reflect modern Britain and the voices of the whole of the UK.”
I suggest to the director-general that the view from Cleethorpes is very different to that. Does the Minister agree that, instead of pandering to these groups and trying to seek new audiences, who perhaps will never remain with the BBC, it should actually provide a better service to its core audience and, again, review the over-75 issue?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree with my hon. Friend. In the service that the BBC provides across the UK, in all the different communities, it is absolutely essential that it tries to sustain support for the licence fee and does not just serve the metropolitan elite in London and Manchester. I am very much aware that communities like those in Cleethorpes are beginning to feel that the BBC is not providing sufficiently for them, and I hope the BBC will take that into account.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
At the general election in 2019, the Conservative party manifesto stated:
“We recognise the value of free TV licences for over-75s and believe they should be funded by the BBC.”
Only months later, over 4.5 million elderly people learned that they are to lose their free TV licence. The question—many people want to know the answer—is: what did the Government do to try to save the free TV licence scheme? Is it now time to recognise that the free TV licence for over-75s is a public good and should be funded by the Government?
Mr Whittingdale
I absolutely stand by the wording of the 2019 manifesto. It remains the case that the Government recognise the value of these licences and believe that the BBC should have maintained them. We made that amply clear to the BBC. Ultimately, however, Parliament agreed that the decision should rest with the BBC.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I represent a heavily rural constituency, and I have been deeply concerned by recent BBC programming that portrays farming and the agriculture sector as either twee and backward or environment-wrecking vandalism. This is deeply wrong and misleading. With over 9,000 people over 75 years old in Brecon and Radnorshire, many feel deeply let down by the BBC at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC needs to take a look at itself and ensure that it is giving every taxpayer value for money?
Mr Whittingdale
I am aware of some of the concerns that my hon. Friend refers to. Obviously it is not a matter for the Government to pass judgment on BBC programming, but it is possible for viewers to make their feelings known by complaining to the BBC and, if they remain unsatisfied, to take the matter to Ofcom.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Age UK has said that many older people on low incomes have told it that if they are to find £150 or more a year to pay for a licence fee, they will have to forgo other essentials or try to survive without a TV at all. Given that TV news is the only source of information for some older people, particularly during the current pandemic, what would the Minister propose as an alternative way of getting this vital information to those who will no longer be able to afford to watch telly?
Mr Whittingdale
I very much hope that those on low incomes will take up pension credit and so continue to be able to watch television, but of course there are other means. If people are anxious to obtain information, they can listen to any number of BBC radio channels and do not require to have a TV licence.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
While the BBC is a valuable national institution, many in Stoke-on-Trent South are concerned about its archaic funding mechanism. In a world where subscription is becoming the norm, does my right hon. Friend agree that reform and identifying better ways to fund the BBC is well overdue?
Mr Whittingdale
I have considerable sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend makes. We are not yet at the point where we could consider moving to a subscription service, because a lot of people still rely on Freeview, which does not allow it. However, the way in which people consume television is changing so fast that it will increasingly lead to questions about the sustainability of the licence fee, and that will certainly be under consideration when we come to the next charter review.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister understand that many of my constituents are fed up with the begging-bowl behaviour of the BBC, which seems to think that its pocket has no bottom to it, and increasingly frustrated by the political bias and the reckless spending of this organisation, with its £1 million-and-more contracts for presenters and the fact that it pays over 100 directors more than the Prime Minister? Will he undertake, first, to ensure that no pensioner who cannot afford the compulsory levy will be criminalised as a result of non-payment? In the longer run, will he look at how the BBC is funded so that we do not have this compulsory tax on people who increasingly get their entertainment elsewhere anyway?
Mr Whittingdale
I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. It was of course as a result of the most recent charter renewal that we now know how many people in the BBC are paid over £150,000 per year and who they are. But there will always be scope for change. If his constituents have complaints about political bias or any other content, I would encourage them to proceed those with the BBC and ultimately Ofcom. I can assure him that when we consider the long-term future, the licence fee will very much be a part of that consideration.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
Many of my older constituents will be facing the double blow of being asked to pay more for the BBC while seeing the programmes they value the most and regional news cut back. Is it not time, and should it not be part of the charter review, to ask what licence fee payers want to see? Is it right that regional news programmes should face such a disproportionate burden of cost savings at the BBC?
Mr Whittingdale
As I indicated earlier, I am concerned at the extent of the reductions taking place in the regional programming budget. I do not think that savings should be spread equally, and there are other areas where greater savings could have been found. That is something we will continue to discuss with the BBC. I hope that the incoming director-general will also have a look right across the board to see what savings can be made and what areas to prioritise.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
During the covid crisis, many people have relied on their local councils for information and support. Local news plays a vital role in both helping share that information and, rightly, holding local councils to account. The cuts of 450 jobs in regional news in England amount to a loss of one in six jobs. What consultation have the Government had with the BBC about the threat to the democratic process arising from these job losses?
Mr Whittingdale
I have discussed the implications of reductions with the director for England and the director for nations and regions at the BBC. However, I would draw attention to the BBC’s local democracy reporting service, which it put in place and funds 150 journalists precisely to address the hon. Member’s concern about how local councils in particular should be properly held to account and reported. The BBC has pledged to maintain that, and I hope it will continue to do so.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The licence fee was first introduced in 1946 largely to help fund television after the second world war. At that time, there was one channel and one broadcaster. The world has changed a great deal since then and we see new digital streaming services emerging on an almost daily basis. Following the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), will he assure the House that there will be a fundamental review of how the BBC is funded in time for its new charter in 2027?
Mr Whittingdale
I share my hon. Friend’s view that the landscape is changing so fast and there is a much more choice now available to viewers, and that should cause the BBC to look again at what it provides and consider those areas where public service content is still important and where, perhaps, in other areas it is no longer so necessary. That fundamental issue will be under consideration as part of our forthcoming public service broadcasting review. At the same time, we will also be talking to the BBC in detail, as part of the licence fee negotiations, about the funding it will require in the future.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Many of the assumptions around these negotiations—audiences are shrinking and the young are tempted away by Netflix—are contradicted by coronavirus. On the week that lockdown started, 94% of all Britons used it, as well as 86% of young adults. There have been a billion hits on iPlayer, and there were three million people on Bitesize the day it launched. In all, that makes up 24% of all online time, compared to 3% for Netflix. Does the Minister therefore share my dismay that the current round of cuts is hitting only band B and C journalists—the people producing the output that is keeping us all going—and that none of the management or higher bands are affected? Does he not agree that they should bear some of the burden, too?
Mr Whittingdale
Of course, one of the consequences of the lockdown was that viewing figures right across the board for both linear and online programming dramatically increased. However, I absolutely agree with the point the hon. Member makes. It is entirely a matter for the BBC as to where it finds savings, but I do believe that the journalists and reporters are providing an invaluable service in the regions. I certainly hope that the BBC will listen to the point she has made, because I have considerable sympathy with it.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
All 61 games in next year’s rugby league world cup will be shown on the BBC—I just hope that rugby league fans from my patch who are over 75 will be able to afford their TV licence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC should look to continue doing what it does best and stop trying to do everything?
Mr Whittingdale
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, with the huge increase in choice, it may well be that there are areas in which it is no longer as important that the BBC provides programming content as it was before that choice extended to the extent that it has. I hope that is something the BBC will consider carefully, and I believe that the director-general, who will shortly be taking up his post, is intending to do that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
In 1968, long before the Minister’s apparent predilection for Netflix, he may well recall that the BBC comprised two TV channels, four radio stations and just a small handful of local radio stations. Fifty years on, the BBC licence fee is at the same level in real terms, despite the great local and national services it provides, which have helped young and old through the recent crisis. As a public and social service at 43p a day, does this not already represent excellent value for money?
Mr Whittingdale
It is very difficult to judge whether something is value for money when it is a legal requirement to pay it; people do not have a choice. We generally judge whether something is value for money by whether or not people choose to buy it, but of course that is not possible in the case of the licence fee.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In 2015, the BBC made a commitment to solely fund free TV licences for the over-75s in a deal that Lord Hall described as a “strong” one. The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are rightly angered by its decision not to honour this commitment. Will my right hon. Friend act in haste to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee and, at the next charter review, commit to scrapping the licence fee altogether?
Mr Whittingdale
I do understand the feeling of my hon. Friend’s constituents. On the point he makes about decriminalisation, that is something we are seriously considering. We are currently going through the responses to our consultation on that matter, and we will be announcing the outcome very soon.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
Alongside free television licences for the over-75s, which I will keep campaigning on, may I raise how, during lockdown, a number of elderly and vulnerable members of the East Kilbride West church have been tuning in to the BBC’s “Reflections at the Quay”—enabling them to join the service on a Sunday morning, when they would normally have been attending church—which, appallingly, has now been taken off air, leaving them absolutely devastated? Many are still shielding, lonely and now more isolated than ever, and my constituents want this important programme back. I urge the Minister to have a discussion with the BBC about the importance of religious broadcasting in supporting the most vulnerable at this time.
Mr Whittingdale
As the hon. Lady knows, religious broadcasting is part of the public service obligations. How the BBC goes about fulfilling those obligations is a matter for it. However, I can fully understand the concerns of her constituents, and I would urge her to take up that matter with the BBC.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I agree with him that the BBC still does a number of things well, particularly with regard to coronavirus. However, with this decision on the over-75s, the cutbacks to regional news and regional current affairs, and the news that £12 million has been paid out of licence fee payers’ money to settle the tax bills of former BBC presenters, does he agree with me and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme that it is far too metropolitan and out of touch with towns across the country such as Newcastle?
Mr Whittingdale
I think my hon. Friend will be aware that the auditor was very critical of the decision about the settlement of the tax bills of those employees who operated through public service companies. That is a matter for the BBC, but the National Audit Office is there to audit it. It is a responsibility of the BBC to look at the way in which it spends public money. The licence fee is a privilege and, going with that, it has the responsibility to spend it properly
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Before the general election last year, I led a debate in Westminster Hall calling on the Department for Work and Pensions to introduce a new campaign to increase the uptake of pension credits. Work and Pensions Ministers have refused to do that, and in answer to written questions I have tabled, they have refused to increase the campaign to get take-up above 60%. The Minister knows that it is not for the BBC to implement Government welfare plans, so rather than just relying on the BBC writing letters to all over-75s, will the Minister commit to getting the DWP to start such a campaign, including writing to those pensioners who are entitled to the £2.5 billion that remains unclaimed by some of the poorest pensioners across the UK?
Mr Whittingdale
I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the fact that the BBC has now said it will write to every pensioner over 75 to say they might still be entitled to receive a free TV licence if they are eligible for pension credit. That seems to fulfil exactly what he has asked for.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I know that “Eastenders” has a place in the hearts of many of our constituents, but not one so well embedded that they were not disappointed to learn that the cost of rebuilding the set went from just under £60 million to almost £90 million—£30 million of licence fee money on one project. Would it not be better for the BBC to focus on saving money and selling worldwide what we pay it to make, rather than on cutting free TV licences for pensioners?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about BBC expenditure. One reason the NAO was given total access to the BBC’s books was to identify areas of extravagance or waste, and it did a very good job. He is also right that the BBC makes a considerable income from selling its programmes abroad, and that, too, is something where I hope the BBC will continue to look for opportunities to raise additional income.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
In Hull, our local BBC TV and radio is central to our community, as a public service broadcaster at times of crisis such as the flooding in 2007 and covid-19 this year, and by playing an important democratic role in scrutinising those in power locally. Taken with the parallel cutbacks in local newspapers and commercial TV and radio, local and regional BBC cuts are a growing crisis in local news, not least in the places furthest from London. The Minister has already said that this could lead to a more London-centric media. What will he do about that to protect news in places such as Hull?
Mr Whittingdale
I sympathise with the hon. Lady, particularly, of course, because commercial media have been under tremendous pressure as a result of the covid crisis and the consequent almost collapse of advertising, which has made the BBC’s contribution all the more important. I welcome the fact that the BBC is maintaining its local radio network and is not going through with some of the reductions in local coverage that were feared, but it needs to do more. I am extremely pleased that it is continuing to support the local democracy reporting service, which ensures that there are still reporters in local council chambers.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It has been some years since many BBC operations moved out of London to Salford Quays. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the value for money of that move and how effective it has been in taking the BBC out into the provinces?
Mr Whittingdale
It was absolutely right that the BBC opened up a major production facility in Salford, because there was a perception that it was far too London-centric. There is a risk that it is now seen as far too London and Manchester-centric, so it needs to do more. It is not just a question of value for money; the BBC has a responsibility to make sure it is properly represented in and covers all the regions and nations of the UK.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
In terms of public money, how come it is okay for people in the midlands to contribute £1 billion in licence fees and only get back 15% in jobs and production opportunities? Surely the Minister thinks that is completely unacceptable.
Mr Whittingdale
In a sense, I simply repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart): the BBC has a responsibility to be represented in, and to employ its own staff and commission programming from, right across the UK. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Many of my constituents question why they are forced to pay for an outdated and regressive tax to fund an organisation whose values are becoming increasingly detached from their own. The BBC’s decision to renege on its agreement to fund the licence fee for those aged 75 and over has only served to harden these views. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to review the very existence of the licence fee?
Mr Whittingdale
I share a lot of the criticisms that my hon. Friend makes of the licence fee. It is highly regressive, and there is no means testing or benefit available to anybody under 75. However, in the past it was always felt that, for all its faults, there was no better way of funding the BBC. That may become increasingly questioned, particularly as more and more people obtain their programming online. Undoubtedly, that debate will form part of the next charter review.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Because of huge Government cuts, the BBC has reluctantly had to axe the free TV licence for the over-75s, and make substantial reductions to national news and its much-treasured regional news output. During the heat of the election, the Conservatives extolled the virtues of local news and promised to protect our elderly from isolation by retaining their free TV licences. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to those millions of pensioners and the BBC staff who will lose their jobs as a result of the Government’s broken manifesto pledge?
Mr Whittingdale
The Government have always believed very strongly in the independence of the BBC. It is for the BBC to take decisions about its programming content, its employment practices and, indeed, the licence fee. It was not for us to instruct it. However, as I and the Government have repeatedly made clear, we regret the decisions it has taken about over-75s and regional programming.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I share everyone’s disappointment that the BBC has chosen to break the agreement that it came to in 2015, but what worries me above all about this change is that we are talking about people who are very old and frail—people who may be suffering from developing dementia, or may be going into care homes or hospitals. They will be criminalised if they do not pay the licence fee. The Minister has the power to change that, and I urge him to do so.
Mr Whittingdale
As my hon. Friend is aware, there are strong feelings about the current criminal enforcement of the licence fee. The Government recognise that, which is why we are holding a consultation. We hope to say more about that soon.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The TV has been a vital lifeline to pensioners during the pandemic, but because of some very cynical Conservative party buck-passing, more than 5,200 households in East Renfrewshire—more than 80% of homes in which someone is over 75—face paying the licence fee. Those pensioners rely on their televisions. The Government clearly have an influence, so will the Minister use it and work with the BBC to reverse this unfortunate and very damaging decision?
Mr Whittingdale
There were a number of options available to the BBC, as I said, and it chose to proceed with the complete removal of the concession for over-75s. That is a matter of regret, and of course we will continue to talk to it. As Parliament made clear, the responsibility lies with the BBC.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The BBC’s role in delivering regional and local news is more critical today than ever, particularly given the pressure faced by advertising-funded media organisations, some of which have seen their income fall by more than 80%. That is in sharp contrast with the BBC’s guaranteed funding of more than £5 billion-worth of licence fee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ofcom, as the UK’s media regulator, should review the proposed changes to the BBC’s regional current affairs content to ensure that the public service broadcaster is delivering its licence obligations?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area through the all-party parliamentary media group, and he and I have already discussed the huge pressure on commercial media as a result of the covid crisis. He is absolutely right that the BBC’s obligation to provide programming in the regions is laid down by Ofcom, which will assess whether it is properly carrying that out.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that real-terms public funding for the BBC has dropped by 30% since 2010, as the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, the UK’s leading audience charity, found?
Mr Whittingdale
It was the case that licence fee was frozen for a period of time, but the licence fee settlement, which was agreed in 2015, allowed it to rise again in line with inflation. Since then, the BBC’s income has been maintained in real terms. As with every other institution, in 2010 very difficult decisions had to be taken because of the mess that the economy was in.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that BBC reporting should be completely impartial, independent and free of bias, so that it can remain a trusted news source?
Mr Whittingdale
I very much agree with my hon. Friend on that. The BBC’s obligation to be objective and impartial is absolutely at the core of its public purpose—it is written into its public purposes. There are doubts on this, and I draw her attention to a good article in The Sunday Times by Roger Mosey, the former head of BBC news gathering, in which he echoed a lot of the concerns she is expressing.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]
May I remind the Minister that the BBC has chosen the option that he put forward as a Back Bencher on 11 June 2019, at columns 552-53 of Hansard, when he pointed out that the cost of the concession was rising to £1 billion and that the BBC would probably have to do what it is now proposing?
The House has discussed the best way of dealing with the problem. My version of the way forward is to say that the value of the licence fee should be taken into account in the tax allowance so that pensioners who do not pay tax get the full benefit, those on the standard rate get some benefit and those on the higher rate get much less benefit. I hope he will agree on that, but will he please look at it?
Mr Whittingdale
I do remember my comments, and I never suggested that the BBC would not be faced with a very difficult decision, because the cost of maintaining the exemption is huge and would go on rising. My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. We are coming up to a licence fee settlement in which we will be looking at all these questions, and I am certainly happy to consider the point he has made.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Locking up the over-75s is a remote but still shocking possibility of the BBC move, as Lord Hall told the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport recently. Ahead of any potential decriminalisation, will the Minister assure the House that he will speak to the BBC in the strongest possible terms to ensure that there is no possibility of its aggressively prosecuting non-payment in a way that could lead to pensioners finding themselves in prison, where, ironically, they would receive a free TV licence? Will he take the opportunity of the mid-point of the charter to undertake a root and branch review of the future of funding and what we require from public service broadcasting?
Mr Whittingdale
As my hon. Friend knows well, the number of people going to prison has fallen to a tiny number, but it is still debatable whether that should happen at all. I hope the BBC will be very flexible in its implementation of its new policy and will take account of the needs of pensioners when it comes to enforcement. On the future of public service broadcasting and the licence fee, I absolutely can give him the assurance he seeks.
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.
Windrush Lessons Learned Review
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the progress on the Windrush lessons learned review. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, the Windrush scandal is an ugly stain on the face of our country and on the Home Office. Wendy Williams’ independent report laid bare institutional failings over several decades that let down so many who had given so much to Britain. It was damning about the conduct of the Home Office and unequivocal about the institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issues of race and the history of the Windrush generation. As I have told the House previously, that was simply unacceptable, and my response has been swift, strong and uncompromising.
I apologised unreservedly for the injustice, hardship and suffering of members of the Windrush generation at the hands of successive Governments. I promised to listen and act to reform the culture of the Home Office to better represent all the communities we serve. Last month, I announced that I accepted the review’s important findings, and said that I would come back to the House to update all Members on the progress in implementing the recommendations.
After years of injustice and countless warm words, the Windrush generation deserve to know that action is urgently under way. More than £1.5 million has now been offered by the Windrush compensation scheme. Bishop Webley and I launched and hosted the first meeting of a new cross-Government Windrush working group to address the wider inequalities affecting the Windrush generation and their families.
Three sub-groups have now been established to look at how we implement the recommendations, how to design the new community fund and how best to work with the new Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. That group is also advising on our new communications campaign to encourage more people who were affected to come forward. I put on record my thanks to Bishop Webley and to everyone involved for their ongoing support not only as we implement the findings from the lessons learned review but as we come together to improve our engagement, our communication and our outreach to the communities affected. This is just the beginning.
Urgent and extensive work is taking place across the Home Office and beyond on all the recommendations. Together, the permanent secretary and I are reviewing every aspect of how the Department operates, its leadership, the culture, policies and practices, and the way it views and treats all parts of the communities it serves. My ambition is for a fair, humane, compassionate and outward-looking Home Office that represents people from every corner of our diverse society, which makes our country great. That means confronting Wendy Williams’ findings head-on to deliver lasting change.
To deliver that change, we have divided the recommendations into five parts. Our approach, which Wendy Williams has welcomed, will ensure sweeping reforms to our culture, policies, systems and working practices, reaching across the entire Department. We are consulting external experts, community organisations and the very people the Home Office has failed in the past in an extensive programme of engagement to ensure that officials understand the change that is needed and that the organisation at every level learns the lessons of what went wrong. I have been clear to my officials that it is not a box-ticking exercise. A delivery plan has been drawn up to ensure meaningful and rapid action. We are embracing the need to change our culture across the board, and in many cases we are going further than the recommendations that Wendy has made.
I will now set out just some of the work under way on the recommendations under each of the five themes. The first is righting the wrongs and learning from the past. I have apologised unreservedly to the Windrush generation, but sadly, we know that their faith and trust in those who sit on both sides of the House has been badly damaged over many years. A series of reconciliation events will be held to rebuild the relationship between the Home Office and those who were affected. That is an essential step to enable people whose lives were shattered by Windrush to articulate directly the impact that this scandal has had on their lives.
We must learn from the past. Mandatory training is being introduced for new and existing members of Home Office staff to ensure that everyone working in the Department understands and appreciates the history of migration and race in this country. Every single existing or new member of Home Office staff will be required to undertake that learning. We are going further by introducing a new process to ensure that all new policies are developed in an inclusive way, factoring in the cultural and historical context, and with effective mechanisms to monitor and, where necessary, resolve any concerns.
Secondly, we will create an inclusive workforce in the Home Office. The Home Office must reflect the diverse communities that it serves at every single level. There are simply not enough black, Asian or minority ethnic staff working at the top in senior roles, and there are far too many times when I am the only non-white face in the room. Action must happen now, so I am introducing more diverse shortlists for senior jobs, specialist mentoring and sponsorship programmes to help develop a wider pool of talent and drive cultural change. While it is reassuring that the Home Office is on track to meet its aim of 12% black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in senior roles by 2025, my ambition is to go further, because the Department cannot truly reflect the communities it serves unless it represents the people within them. Protecting, supporting and listening to every single part of the community that the Department serves is a vital lesson to be learned.
Thirdly, I am changing the Home Office’s openness to scrutiny. Policy and decision making must be rigorously examined to ensure that any adverse impact on any corner of our society is identified and acted on quickly. To ensure that we better understand the groups and communities that our policies affect, we are overhauling the way in which we build up our evidence base and engage with stakeholders across the board. I expect my officials to engage with community organisations, civil society and the public, and I will be looking for evidence of that in every piece of advice that Ministers receive.
Wendy Williams was clear that a lack of insight into the community’s experience meant that the Home Office missed opportunities to anticipate the Windrush scandal. She stated that
“Officials could and should have done more”.
She effectively said that we must all do better at walking in other people’s shoes. I will overhaul the Department’s risk management framework so that we can identify problems sooner, understand the unintended consequences of decisions for people and communities and keep protection of the public at the heart of what we do. That will give officials the knowledge, understanding and responsibility to raise risks and concerns, rather than hide them, and ensure that they are listened to and acted on.
Fourthly, there will be inclusive and robust policy making. It is key that we build institutional memory and reflect past learnings and experiences when setting out new approaches. Mandatory training on the public sector equality duty and the impact assessment process is being rolled out across the Department, including for the most senior staff. As well as considering the equalities impact, all impact assessments and submissions to Ministers must address the risks to vulnerable individuals and groups.
The final and most critical theme is a more compassionate approach—people not cases. This is at the heart of ensuring that nothing like the injustices faced by the Windrush generation can ever happen again. The injustices of Windrush happened not because Home Office staff were bad people but because staff themselves were caught up in a system in which they did not feel that they had the permission to bring personal judgment to bear. I have heard from victims directly when they have spoken of decision making as a process—a process that ground people down and lacked compassion towards the very people who should have been supported. I have heard people speak of being dismissed as if they just did not matter and their voices were irrelevant.
Putting people first will be built into the reforms that we make. Everyone making decisions must see a face behind the case. We must feel empowered to use our own discretion and pragmatism in decision making. The overwhelming majority of the British public agree that it is right that those with no legal right to be in this country must not be allowed to exploit the system, but we must protect the law-abiding majority. To build and maintain public confidence in the immigration system, it should not be easy for those here to illegally flout the rules, but we must make sure that we have the right protections in place for those whose status should have been assured. We need a system that is fair.
What happened to the Windrush generation is unspeakable, and no one with a legal right to be here should ever have been penalised. I have tasked my officials to undertake a full evaluation of the compliant environment policy and measures, individually and cumulatively, to make sure that the crucial balance is right. I have asked them to evaluate the changes that were made to immigration and nationality laws over successive Governments to ensure that they are fit for purpose for today’s world. If those changes were not communicated effectively enough, we will act to make them so. Have no doubt that where we find problems, I will seek to fix them, but equally, be under no illusion that if people are here wrongly or illegally, then naturally we will act.
We are determined to get this right. We owe it to the Windrush generation and, of course, their descendants. Wendy Williams has asked that we carefully consider our next steps to deliver both meaningful and lasting change. I will deliver on that commitment and continue to update the House. In September 2021, Wendy Williams will return to the Home Office to review our progress. I am confident that she will find the start of a genuine cultural shift within the Department—a Home Office that is working hard to be more diverse, more compassionate and worthy of the trust of the communities it serves. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. I pay tribute to Wendy Williams and her team for their work and I welcome the further details set out today on changes at the Home Office, but the Windrush scandal must lead to real and lasting change.
The review powerfully exposed some of the terrible situations that people were forced into. Gloria, who had been in this country since she was 10, lost her job as a care worker as she was unable to renew her passport and prove her identity. Pauline, who came to the UK at 12 and qualified as a social worker, went on a two-week holiday to Jamaica that became an 18-month nightmare; she was detained and refused UK re-entry, losing her home and her livelihood. These are just two examples of the lives devastated by this scandal, and it is all the more shocking that just 60 people received compensation from the Windrush compensation scheme in its first year of operation.
Ministers must get a grip of the scheme. The review is clear that the Home Office should be more proactive in identifying people affected and putting right any detriment detected, with a focus on identifying people from elsewhere in the Commonwealth who may have been affected. Will the Home Secretary confirm today how many people the Home Office estimates are eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme? As of today, how many have applied? Of those, how many are from Commonwealth countries or related to them, and how many are from other countries—the category that arrived before 31 December 1988—and are now settled here? Will she explain why the published number of applicants seems so low, given the scale of the injustice? What does she expect the average turnaround time of a claim to be?
The Home Secretary mentioned in her statement that more than £1.5 million had been paid out. It is also the case that some people who were deemed eligible for the scheme early last year still have not received their compensation; for them, every day without that money continues to be a struggle. Will the Home Secretary also tell us which Minister is in charge of the scheme?
I turn to the other recommendations, of which there are 30 in total. Wendy Williams said:
“The department should publish a comprehensive improvement plan within six months of this report”.
The Home Secretary mentioned a delivery plan in her statement, but can she now confirm that, in line with the recommendations, she will publish it immediately? Another recommendation was that the Home Secretary should
“undertake a full review and evaluation of the hostile…environment policy…individually and cumulatively.”
The Home Secretary did mention that review, but can she tell us when she expects it to be completed? Wendy Williams’s review also recommended the creation of a migrants commissioner. What powers will the commissioner have, what budget will they control and when will the recruitment process for that vital post begin?
Nobody disagrees that the Home Office should be fair, humane and outward-looking, but the Home Secretary said at a recent meeting of the Home Affairs Committee that Wendy Williams was only a
“fraction away from calling the Home Office institutionally racist.”
Can I ask the Home Secretary how she felt about that? In view of that, what are her reflections on the decade for which the Conservative party has been in charge of the Home Office? The truth is that the Government are so little trusted in this area that it is vital that we maintain maximum scrutiny. The Black Lives Matter movement highlighted the need not just to recognise the discrimination and racism that black people continue to face, but to demand action.
Given their failure to act on so many previous reviews, the Government are falling woefully short on action. That is why we will be holding them to account for delivering the vital changes outlined in the report with the urgency that is required. Is not the truth that the Windrush generation, who gave so much to rebuilding the country after world war two, deserve nothing less, and future generations deserve so much more?
Priti Patel
I would like not only to restate my commitment to delivering the compensation for those who became victims of the Windrush scandal itself, but to say that it is absolutely right, and it is my focus, my determination and my resolve, to ensure that the individuals whose lives were blighted and shattered as a result of a series of measures that, to quote Wendy Williams,
“evolved under the Labour, Coalition and Conservative Governments”
receive the compensation that they deserve.
It is a fact that the injustices will not be resolved or fixed overnight, and I have levelled with the House on that point on a number of occasions. The mistreatment that the affected individuals endured was simply unacceptable. I will continue to do everything within my power to lead the Home Office in delivering on compensation, and to ensure that through the lessons learned review and Wendy Williams’s work, we right the wrongs and properly compensate those who were affected. That will not happen overnight.
I have already expanded the compensation scheme so that people will be able to apply to it until at least April 2023, but we have to go beyond that, and I would be more than willing to do so. We have made the criteria more generous so that people can receive the maximum compensation that they rightly deserve. I have said that £1.5 million of compensation has been offered to individuals, but of course I want compensation payments to be sped up. The scheme has already received 1,342 applications. Final offers have been made to more than 154 individuals. Urgent and exceptional payments have been made to hundreds of individuals—in fact, more than 1,400 individuals have been supported by the vulnerable persons team—and a significant number of cases have been closed.
As I think I said at the Select Committee just last week, a vast number of cases—I will say it now: 1,000 cases —are not just led by the Home Office, but split across other Departments, including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, in terms of ascertaining information and data. As I have said on previous occasions, outreach and engagement with people across a wide range of communities, including other Commonwealth countries, is vital. We simply, partly due to covid, have not been able to continue direct face-to-face engagement with community organisations and representatives in the way we had planned, but only by doing that can we identify others who have not even applied to the compensation scheme. More work needs to be done—I am very honest and open about that. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) speaks about scrutiny. He is more than welcome to continue asking questions and we will provide answers where we can. At the same time, we are subject to not full data and not full information and I would be more than happy to continue working with colleagues across the House, and all political parties, as I have done, to ensure that more people do come forward. That is something we should all collectively step up to and encourage.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The cross-Government working group has a key role to consider the changes needed to support the Windrush generation, as well as a wider scope to address the challenges faced by black and ethnic minority people across the country and society, in education, work and health. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on how she sees that group developing? Does she consider quarterly meetings sufficient to make good progress?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Not just through my time at the Home Office, but even now, every time I look at Windrush cases and read the details and backgrounds of the hardship and suffering, I fundamentally believe that there is much more we need to do as political leaders, individually and collectively, to ensure that we celebrate our differences, but remember that we are one nation and one community. The outreach and stakeholder groups that we have established are critical to ensuring that we drive change in our practices and policies, and that we communicate in a compassionate and humane way and reach out to individuals in the right way.
My hon. Friend asked whether quarterly meetings are enough, but we do not just have quarterly meetings. I am in regular contact with representatives and chairs of stakeholder groups, and that will continue. I intend to leave no stone unturned, and although I appreciate that individuals in the House might focus more on the number of cases, I believe that we need to fulfil cases and deliver on compensation. We must also look at people, not just cases, which means that we can consider the wider policies that we need to explore—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing that through his new race and equality group, too—to get the right policies in place so that we can address many of the injustices that people constantly speak about.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome this full statement, which contains some substantial commitments and aims, and I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of it. First, when Wendy Williams gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this month, she said that the Windrush scandal had highlighted
“fundamental cultural, political and institutional factors”
relevant to how the Home Office carries out its duties across the board. She said that those issues needed to be fixed and it seems that the Home Secretary has recognised that in her statement. But Wendy Williams also said that she had considered the Home Office responses to previous reviews and reports, and found that those responses tended to be characterised by a quick acknowledgement of the result and a focus on process, rather than on the fundamental issues identified in the respective reviews. She said that, in the past, the remedial actions taken by the Home Office were superficial to the extent that there was action at all, and that they did not have a lasting effect. She also said that many of the issues that were identified kept coming up successively, time and again, but in different contexts. So can the Home Secretary reassure me that the steps she intends to take will avoid the pitfalls that Wendy Williams has identified with previous reviews?
Secondly, the Home Secretary has committed to changing the Home Office’s openness to scrutiny, policy and decision making, and she talks about engagement. Will that include engagement with the devolved Government in Edinburgh? Thirdly and finally, the Home Secretary and I do not always see eye to eye, but I want to thank her for doing what she was unable to do last time, which is to confirm that she will carry out the root and branch review of the hostile environment policy that Wendy Williams stipulated in recommendation 7. In relation to that, I have a specific question for the Home Secretary. Will she tell us whether measures such as the right to rent scheme will be paused pending the outcome of the review of the hostile environment policy?
Priti Patel
The hon. and learned Lady raises some very important points, quite frankly, about how the Home Office not just undertakes reviews but picks up on recommendations and enacts recommendations around reviews themselves.
It is fair to say that Wendy Williams’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” is a review like no other. Thankfully, it is a one-off review of an absolutely shocking scandal that took place. As I said in my statement, it identifies and marks a stain on the history of our country, but it also scars my Department significantly. As a result, the measures that I have outlined today—just the five steps alone, which are very focused on the Home Office itself, including encompassing policy aspects—are very detailed. They are detailed for a reason. They are not a tick-box response, and they are not a “quick, let’s fix this and pay lip service” response either. A great deal of work is required. This speaks to the hon. and learned Lady’s third point, about reviewing the compliant environment and the work that will need to be undertaken there, which will take time. Obviously, I will report back, and as a Department we will report back, on exactly how policies are effected specifically on that.
It is fair to say that my commitment on this issue, and more fundamentally with regard to the Home Office, is absolutely solid and firm. I have seen all sorts of practices, I have experienced all sorts of practices in the Home Office, and I have been on the receiving end of certain practices in the Home Office as well, which quite frankly speak to some of the points that came out of Wendy Williams’s review. Therefore, our commitment is solid, and it is firm.
The hon. and learned Lady also asks about engagement with the devolved Administrations. She should take that as a given. There is always more work that needs to be done on that front, and that is something that I am committed to doing.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Having compensation available that people are aware of is very important, but trust in the system also needs to be rebuilt so that people feel confident in claiming. What is she doing to ensure that people are not just aware of the funds that are available but confident to claim?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He will have heard my comment in my statement about rebuilding trust. For people to come forward, they have to have not just confidence but trust in the organisation that they are engaging with. That is fundamental to the work that the Home Office is now undertaking.
On a practical level—I have spoken before at the Dispatch Box about the practical steps that need to be undertaken—we need to do better in terms of our outreach. We have not undertaken engagement opportunities because of covid and, obviously, the problems with getting out and around the country. That will change. I have set up new stakeholder groups, we have a new communications campaign and officials will be going back into communities. I think I said when I came to the House the day after the publication of Wendy’s report, on 19 March, that I want to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that we are working in their communities to rebuild the bonds and bridges of trust—importantly, both to build those links and to reach out to individuals who have been affected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
What happened to the Windrush generation at the hands of the British Home Office was deeply shameful. I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to fundamental reform of the culture and the processes in the Home Office, and her commitment to change the way the Home Office works. I also welcome the openness to scrutiny to which she referred. We on the Home Affairs Committee will welcome further details from her of her plans.
The Home Secretary referred to the Home Office needing to have a humane face, and that must start with those who have been most badly wronged. As she will know, there are still huge delays in the compensation process. I have had two more cases given to me this afternoon of people who have been waiting for over a year. They are still waiting, but are unable to get any response from the Home Office about what is happening to their cases. We are hearing of case after case where that is happening. Will she now urgently review the operation of the compensation scheme, so that initial payments can be made far, far more quickly? This is an ageing generation. It is urgent that they get support.
Priti Patel
The right hon. Lady will be aware, from when we spoke at the Select Committee last week, of my comments on cases and the changes—new case- workers—that will come into place If she would like to provide me with the two new cases, I will take a look at them myself.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome the very personal ownership the Home Secretary has taken of identifying and implementing solutions to the problems that Windrush revealed, particularly around people not cases, as she said. Windrush uncovered just how complicated, opaque and costly the whole immigration system is, with numerous and complex different qualifying criteria not just for citizenship under Windrush, but for indefinite leave to remain, child asylum applications and so on. Will she, as part of the people-friendly reforms, which I welcome, and the review of immigration legislation, make sure that the whole immigration system is simplified, streamlined and made much more affordable for all?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment and his point. He will know, through the work we are undertaking in the Home Office itself with reforms to the immigration system, including the points-based system, that we are looking at the Law Commission’s recommendations on simplifying the immigration system. It has become far too complicated, and this is the moment that we need to streamline the system and make it much more open, more transparent, much more flexible and much more agile—but, actually, much fairer.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but if we are learning lessons why will she not act now on looked-after children and care leavers eligible under the EU settlement scheme to ensure that they are all urgently processed? Otherwise, they are destined to end up in exactly the same position as the Windrush victims.
Priti Patel
With respect, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s last comment. When it comes to carers and children in particular—who he rightly highlights, if I may say so—there is a great deal of effort taking place, not just in the Department but with local authorities, specifically on the groups he speaks about. It is right that we do that and, of course, we are committed to doing that, but obviously as he will know there are some complexities right now throughout the covid period that we, others and local authorities themselves have come up against. If he has particular cases that he wants me to look up, I am more than happy to do so.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the £1.5 million already offered by way of legal compensation will be the start of a proper and thorough process of compensation? Does she agree that justice delayed is actually justice denied?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have highlighted, both today and in previous statements, it is absolutely my intention, my desire and my focus, and the focus of the Home Office, to ensure that we do more around compensation. These cases, I am sorry to say, are complicated for a whole range of reasons, but that does not necessarily mean that we should allow process to just consume these cases. We must make sure that we are getting support to individuals and the Department is absolutely geared up to do that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Recommendation 6 of Wendy Williams’s review calls for an education programme to be introduced for all new and existing Home Office staff to make sure that all staff
“learn about the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, including Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons.”
It is right that the Home Secretary has announced today that that programme is being introduced in the Home Office. Does she agree with me that if we are to avoid such a shameful scandal as the Windrush scandal ever happening again, that content is important not only for staff in the Home Office, but for every child being educated in British schools? If she does agree that that is important, will she speak to her colleague, the Minister for Schools, who has recently refused to meet me and campaigners from my constituency—young people—who are desperate to see reform in their education system, so that they can all say, collectively, “Our history is British history”?
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I strongly welcome the statement and the lead that my right hon. Friend is taking on this hugely important issue. What steps is she taking to make sure that Wendy Williams’s recommendations are taken forward as quickly as possible?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend will know that there are a vast number of recommendations. Wendy emphasised the need to ensure that we did not just fulfil them all immediately, but that we had the time and space to give all the recommendations the right consideration. That is why we are taking this phased approach right now.
I am focusing on two particular elements. One is the compensation; it is right that we go through case by case and look at the complexities behind individual cases. The second significant area is the culture and the Department. That is the focus and, as I have said repeatedly, I will continue to share updates on the recommendations with the House. I have also spoken about the Department now being open to more scrutiny. That will play into the review that Wendy will undertake next year with regards to the Department.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
We have heard Members across the House express their gratitude for the Home Secretary’s commitment to dealing with this issue and her ongoing progress to address the failings identified in the report. Towards the end of her statement, she said that Wendy Williams will come back to the Home Office in September 2021 to reassess things. What will happen in the interim period? How will Ministers and officials look at progress or any potential lack of progress between now and September 2021?
Priti Patel
First, I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with Wendy Williams throughout the implementation of recommendations. It is important that I and the Department do that. We cannot just carry on without taking that external counsel and support and advice. I think it is right that next year, in 2021—over a year in—Wendy looks at the progress of the Department, but this will be ongoing. We have to take both a measured and a responsive approach, in terms of fulfilling the recommendations.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Concerns remain that even before the Home Office had responded to the lessons learned review, the UK Government were pressing ahead with plans to extend the reach of the policy to EU citizens in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. Given what the Secretary of State has said today, will she guarantee that EU citizens will not also become victims of the hostile environment created by her Government?
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her compassion. Talking about the face behind the case, Major Lines is a constituent of mine in Bosworth. He was born in India in 1945, to British parents who were stationed over there when his father was in the British Army. He returned in 1947. He then went on to serve in the Army for 30 years. He has a British subject passport and would like to change that to a British citizen passport, and has had to pay £1,000 and have an appointment to promise his allegiance to the UK. This has similarities with the Windrush scandal. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to protect veterans who are being asked to make promises of allegiance to a country they have served?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises a very important case and an important point of principle about veterans who give their allegiance to our country and serve our nation and how we support and give justice to those individuals. I will update him and the House in due course on some of the changes that I am making in that area. On the specific case he raises, I would be more than happy to take a look at that in further detail.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” recommends that the Home Office implements a comprehensive programme to educate staff about Britain’s colonial history, but the Prime Minister, in an article he wrote for The Spectator, said that the problem with British colonialism was not
“that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more.”
If we are to have trust in this Government to deliver that education programme, will the Home Secretary condemn the Prime Minister and acknowledge the brutal crimes that British colonialism inflicted upon millions of people across the globe?
Priti Patel
My statement was very clear in terms of the needs of this Government, but also the needs of my Department—the Home Office—to learn from the recommendations of Wendy Williams. That is effectively what I am focusing on and it is right. If the hon. Lady heard my statement, she will have heard of my commitment, which is also a commitment by this Government, to ensure that we right the wrongs of the past.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
This excellent statement puts the Home Office well on the way to establishing a culture of honour, which will ensure that we treat people so much better, and it will change how they feel about themselves and how they feel about our country. So I congratulate the Government on what my right hon. Friend has done. What will she do, though, to make sure that “people, not cases” is more than just a slogan?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a point of reflection, not just for the Home Office but for the whole of Government, when it comes to treating individuals not just with compassion, but with the respect that they deserve. As we are all honourable Members of this House and Members of Parliament, we are all familiar with people engagement—casework. It is important that in the Home Office, casework is not seen through the lens of process—that we understand the situation of individual people, that we understand their circumstances, that we treat them with respect, and listen to them, especially, and we support them. That is absolutely my aim and determination—that caseworkers in the Department who are working now to turn around compensation schemes and claims, spend time with individuals, learn of their backgrounds and give them the respect and the service that they deserve.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Callton Young was the first black senior civil servant in the Home Office and is a Croydon councillor; he contributed to the Wendy Williams review. Twenty years on from his appointment, the Home Office still does not have senior black civil servants helping to better inform policy development. Can the Home Secretary tell us more about how she will rapidly address that failure?
Lunar House and many of the Home Office buildings are in my constituency and a lot of my constituents work there. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about seeing a face behind the case. Some of the staff have told me that it is not just a cultural issue—that it is very difficult when they have so many cases to deal with. Is the Home Secretary confident that she has enough people to do the job properly?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady has raised some important points. She first acknowledged the lack of senior leadership, and diversity in senior leadership, particularly in the Home Office. If I may say so, that is a feature, sadly, across Government—across the civil service; it is something that the Government are collectively trying to change. As the leader of the Home Office, it is my responsibility to look at what more we can do to support diversity, even by mentoring—something that I feel very strongly about, from my previous career—individuals from across all backgrounds. Specifically, it is absolutely wrong—I have raised this at a senior management level in my Department—that our own staff members from black and Asian minority ethnic communities are stuck at certain grades in my Department. That is really not acceptable. We should find mentoring schemes to grow them and develop them and their careers. I absolutely believe in that and I want to achieve much more on that front.
The hon. Lady specifically references Lunar House and the remarkable work that individuals and colleagues from the Home Office undertake there. If I may say so, even in Wendy’s report, references to Lunar House were not necessarily made in a positive light. There are a lot of cases. We deal with people. The Home Office is a caseworking Department, dealing with thousands of people day in, day out. In terms of staffing, it is not just about numbers; it is about training and support around our personnel. That is really important, and that is why I need to do more, and my Department—my permanent secretary—needs to do more as well, in terms of investing in people. I fundamentally believe in that, and I think that is the right approach for the future. We will grow and develop our staff, so that we can work in a fundamentally different way with people who come to us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a gentle reminder: it is a very important statement and I would like to get everybody in, but that means just one question at a time, so that the Home Secretary can give brisk answers as well.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I thank her for the rapid way in which her Department has assisted some of my own constituents who have sadly been affected. Can she reassure the House that she will do everything within her power to make sure that those who qualify receive the compensation that they deserve as quickly as possible?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he has heard me speak about the need to speed up work on the compensation claims. We are doing everything that we can. I am here to support anybody who brings a claim forward. My Department will look at how we can process claims far faster.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Put bluntly, the report shows that racism was allowed to infect the Home Office and its immigration policies, and visas are still tainted by it. The Secretary of State refused to believe me when I said that “no recourse to public funds” had left a Newcastle mum unable to feed her baby, but will she accept that I have constituents almost exclusively of black and Asian heritage who are left for years in visa limbo, and will she commit to improving access to the resources of her Department in order to give just and speedy decisions?
Priti Patel
I am more than happy to assure the hon. Lady on her last point. Specifically, on the case that she set out, I said at the time that I would be more than happy to look at it. If she would like to share the details with me, I would be very happy to do so.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I really welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to openness, transparency and scrutiny. Will she let us know whether her Department will therefore publish equality impact assessments that it is committed to carrying out, and will she perhaps blaze a trail across Government by publishing the ethnicity pay gap that might exist within the Home Office?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I have already said, we are embarking on this work and I intend to look at all aspects of equality pay and diversity, and also at equality impact assessments as well. These are some of the key pillars of policy development that the Department will be looking at and, obviously, I will report back in due course on the steps that we undertake.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for her control of the Windrush issue, and for her deep interest and commitment. There are some 30 recommendations in the Wendy Williams report. How does she believe that these can be implemented to ensure that applications adhere not simply to the letter of the policy, but to the spirit of the policy, which would never have intended for this generation of people, who did so much for the UK when we needed them the most, to suffer so needlessly?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he touches on some of the sentiment that has already been echoed in the House around fulfilling the recommendations and not just paying lip service to them. As I have said, the report itself is a report like no other. That is why it is important that we have the time and space to give it the determined attention and diligence that is required to make sure that these recommendations are implemented in the right way, working not only with Wendy, but with other stakeholders, too.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
“Windrush” used to be a name associated with great pride in this country, but because of the scandal it has become associated with failure on the part of the Home Office in letting down people who deserve better from this country. I welcome the statement and the Home Secretary’s commitment to the recommendations, but, given that the Government are about to end free movement and leave millions of EU citizens vulnerable to the same sort of failure, will she consider pausing the immigration policy until she has implemented the recommendations?
Priti Patel
It is important to say, as I have said previously, that I am here specifically looking at the Windrush recommendations and how we apply them going forward. The hon. Lady alludes to the EU settlement scheme, which has already safeguarded the status of more than 3.4 million people. If I recall rightly, there are Members of this House who said at the time that that would never happen, and it has happened. We will continue to do everything possible to ensure that EU citizens in the UK get their status secured, and we have a separate scheme and a separate programme of engagement around that work.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Home Secretary will appreciate the clear distinction between those who are here legally and those who are here illegally. Will she please confirm that our new points-based immigration system will allow us to welcome the very same talent, hard work and skill as that shown by our proud Windrush generation?
Priti Patel
My hon Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken repeatedly—as has the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—about not just welcoming the brightest and the best but being open and fair in terms of how we invite people over to our country, and about having a system that is fair in the way in which it will end discrimination between non-EU and EU countries. That is absolutely vital, as my hon. Friend will know, through the points-based system.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I remind the House of how many members of the Windrush generation and their children joined the armed forces. I served with a great number of them and I thought they were superb. Will the Home Secretary endorse that comment?
Priti Patel
I absolutely will endorse that comment. I echo every word that my hon. Friend has just said.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Home Secretary knows of my concern that the Department is still not engaging with the scandal of thousands of overseas students whose lives were ruined when they were falsely accused of cheating in English language tests. Today, destitution is being inflicted on hard-working families with a legal right to be in the UK because the “no recourse to public funds” restriction is being kept during this pandemic. They are being penalised, contrary to the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she recognise that this deeply troubling pattern requires changes of policy as well as of departmental management?
Priti Patel
Specifically on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, I know that he has met the Immigration Minister a number of times to discuss the issue of English language testing. In fact, the former Home Secretary put down a written ministerial statement last year outlining his response to some of the responses and concerns that were raised at the time. The right hon. Gentleman also raises the issue of no recourse to public funds; however, he puts that in the context of people that he said are in need of support and funds. As I have already articulated and echoed to the House, if there are particular cases that he would like to raise with me, he is very welcome to do so and I will look at them directly.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that playing party politics over the Windrush generation is shameful? Given that the hostile environment started in 2007, will she join me in urging Opposition Members to work with the Government to right this wrong?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the responsibility that we all have in terms of learning from the past and trying to right the wrongs of the past collectively. He has sat in the House diligently over the course of previous statements, if I recall, and the most recent Windrush statement as well, and asked a question in a similar vein. He will have heard me say to all Members of this House that whether it is on individual cases or whether it is in our tone, our posture or how we address the issue of injustices, we have to work together. No individual, no Government, no organisation has the sole answer to this. It is important that we work collectively and together.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
We hear that caseworkers have been told to demand of some claimants that they make their case beyond reasonable doubt—a high standard that many will struggle to meet. Why has the bar been set so high? Will that be reviewed as part of the evaluation of the hostile environment policy?
Priti Patel
As I have already said several times with regard to the cases themselves, these are complicated cases and individuals need to provide certain amounts of information with regard to the processing of claims and not just payments. That is part of the scheme that was created before I became Home Secretary, with Martin Forde QC, and the scheme was developed in conjunction with members of the Windrush generation. I have said that I am prepared now to look at any complexities around the scheme, and I said this at the Select Committee last week as well. If we need to look at amending the scheme going forward to enable and facilitate quicker payments or swifter cases being turned around, we will absolutely look at that.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In a similar situation to the Windrush generation are the descendants of Chagos islanders, whose families were exiled from the British Indian Ocean Territory, and who now face citizenship problems. In the review of nationality law that my right hon. Friend just announced, will she commit to looking at the case of the Chagossian people?
Priti Patel
As I have touched on, this will form part of the Home Office’s wider work on all sorts of aspects of nationality law and the complexities of immigration law and the immigration system. As I said, we need the time and ability to do this, which is what we are undertaking right now and will continue to do so. In due course, I will report back. We will look at all these issues, and I am sure that many more will surface in the weeks and months ahead.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her excellent work and for committing to right the wrongs done to the Windrush generation, but will she also consider further reforms to how the Home Office processes immigration applications? As someone who experienced the joys of Lunar House personally, I know it is a labyrinth of mismanaged records and cases. There are excellent civil servants, but we need to be people focused, rather than case focused.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend speaks with experience of process, which is a point that has been touched on already. There are many lessons to be learned, but on process there are also issues with the management of case files, technology, record keeping, data retention—you name it. These are long-term, long-standing issues that the Home Office needs to grip and are part of wider changes to the machinery of government that we are looking at.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary said in her statement: “If we find a problem, I will fix it.” Let me commend to her the work of my constituent Chrisann Jarrett and We Belong, young people who came to this country, some when they were as young as two. They are now on the long road to citizenship—10 years—and every three years have to pay over £2,500 in fees. These are young people who will become British citizens, but every hurdle is being put in their way. They are passionate about this country and are not going to live anywhere else. The Home Secretary could save herself resources and staff time, and support those young people, if she were to look at this. I am sure that Chrisann and We Belong would be willing to engage with her Department.
Priti Patel
I look forward to that engagement if it is something we can facilitate.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend will be all too aware of the multicultural nature of my constituency: not a day goes by without somebody coming to my office—at the moment, virtually —with a new immigration case. Many of these cases are complicated, stretch back several years and are in a queue in the Home Office. Can I urge her, as she progresses the reforms on the Windrush generation, not to remove resources from dealing with people in the backlog, but actually to concentrate more experienced caseworkers there to clear this backlog so that people who have been living in this country for an awfully long time can normalise their position?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can assure him that the two are separate—obviously we have a bespoke team working on Windrush. I hear him completely on the wider immigration cases. The closure of centres over the last four months will not have assisted with the speed of processing, but now that we are getting back to work, the claims will be processed and people will be given the attention they deserve.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the support her Department has given to my constituents affected by this. Will she ensure everything is done to get them the compensation they are entitled to as soon as possible?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes a similar point to colleagues in the House about the scheme itself. Of course, I am determined to ensure that compensation does get out to individuals quickly. As I have already said—I will restate the point—where changes may need to take place around the scheme, we will look to undertake them.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The no recourse to public funds policy is another example of a policy that affects migrants and the BAME community, and it must be scrapped immediately. Will the Secretary of State show that she is serious about addressing inequality and scrap the policy?
Priti Patel
As I said, all policies are under review in the Department, but specifically, on no recourse to public funds, it is right that those who benefit from the state also contribute to it. The policy is specific to migrants coming to our country being financially independent, which is also in the interests of British taxpayers.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
First, I thank the Home Secretary for the tone and ownership she has displayed in the Chamber on the issues impacting the Windrush generation. Will she acknowledge that the Windrush scandal highlights how institutions can fail, with discrimination and prejudice against individuals. There is often denialism, and only after a scandal are they forced to accept the dark reality. What changes are the Home Office implementing so that issues such as racism can be raised and highlighted in a manner where they will be believed?
Priti Patel
As I have already stated, Wendy’s review is important because she described a number of measures that evolved under Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments over decades. It is important that we all look at ourselves, because we must all be better at walking in other people’s shoes. We must all take responsibility for the failings that happened in the past. We are also one community who deserve to be treated with respect. We should therefore all learn lessons from the past.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend referred to changing the Home Office’s openness to scrutiny, which will, quite rightly, lead to the Home Office better understanding the communities and groups it serves. What steps will she put in place to ensure that a similar level of understanding can be applied to the data that the Home Office holds and the impact that changes in policy might have on the people whom the data reflects?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes an important point about data, with the type of trends and information that comes through to the Home Office. In fact, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) also touched on data and processes. On scrutiny, we need to look at all aspects—not just policy but information, trends, flows, immigration data and all the sorts of data that come into the Department. We also need the skills to do that. That is part of the change we are seeing not just in the Home Office but across Government, with data analytics and information, in how we as a Government can respond on policy while treating people with compassion and fairness.
Point of Order
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 16 June, the UK and US Governments signed a draft US-UK technology safeguards agreement, and on 18 June, I asked the Government when they would publish details of it. I duly received a reply on 23 June to say that it would be laid in Parliament after enabling legislation was in force. We are now more than a month on and heading into recess, yet there is no sign of any detail about this agreement being published. I am looking for advice on how I can get greater clarity from the Government on what that agreement includes over the course of the recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that matter and for giving me notice of his point of order. He has successfully raised the issue in the Chamber. It is not really a point of order for the Chair, but I know that Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard what he said, and I am sure that they will pass it back to the relevant Department. He may wish to write to Ministers —he asked what he could do over summer, and that is one course of action—but I am confident that Ministers on the Front Bench will pass it back and try to assist him.
Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing)
Tuesday 21st July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 View all Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) 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
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment; and for connected purposes.
Death by dangerous driving is an all too familiar phrase, yet I wonder how many people, when they hear that phrase, think about the tragedy and devastation of lives that lies behind it. In 2015, my 19-year-old constituent Bryony Hollands died at the hands of a dangerous driver—a driver under the influence of drink and drugs. He was sentenced to eight years and served just four years in jail. In July 2018, my constituent Ciara Lee’s husband Eddy was killed on the M4. The driver responsible was sentenced to just 22 months and is already out on licence. In December 2019, a driver under the influence of drugs hit and killed 13-year-old Max Simmonds in my constituency. The judge described the defendant’s driving record as “nothing less than appalling”, indicating an
“utterly selfish and thoughtless attitude to other drivers”.
I am sure that the majority of Members of this House —indeed, possibly every one of them—have a story to tell of death by dangerous driving in their constituency, and many of those events will have left loved ones feeling that justice has not been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was telling me about a case in his constituency just last night, and there will be other cases across the country—cases like that of Violet-Grace, told to me by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). Violet-Grace Youens was four years old when she tragically died. A car being driven recklessly mounted the pavement and struck her and her grandmother. The driver left the scene, running past Violet-Grace and her grandmother as they lay injured on the ground. When he was eventually apprehended, he was sentenced to nine years and four months. Becky Youens sadly remarked that he will serve less time in prison than Violet-Grace was alive. Bryony Hollands’s father, my constituent Mark Hollands, has campaigned since her death for the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to be increased from 14 years to life. The Youens family has campaigned for the same, as have many others. All feel that justice is currently, in many cases, not being done.
When I was Prime Minister, the Government listened to those concerns. We consulted on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury. That consultation found considerable support for increasing the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving: 70% of respondents thought the maximum sentence should be increased from the present 14 years to life. My Government committed to introducing that change in the sentencing Bill. For various reasons, which I will not go into today, that Bill was delayed under my premiership and was not brought forward before I stepped down as Prime Minister. However, the current Government are also committed to a sentencing Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has indicated in this Chamber that he supports the change in sentencing, yet the sentencing Bill has not yet been introduced and the change has not yet been made.
This Bill, the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill, is simple. It amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. It fulfils the commitment I gave, it fulfils the commitment my Government gave and it fulfils the commitment this Government have given. It has cross-party support, and it does the Government’s work for them. The Bill responds to a genuine concern that the severity of the offence is not always reflected in current sentencing, because of the limitations on the sentence that currently exist. It does not try to introduce an eye-for-an-eye type of justice system. What it does is ensure justice for victims and their families. As Mark Hollands said:
“The whole campaign is not that there’s automatic life sentencing or anything like it, but it’s available for judges when you get cases of people who persistently drive at speed.”
That is the key point. Judges today do their best to reflect the severity of the offence in sentencing, but their options are limited. Under this Bill, judges will still retain discretion as to what length of sentence is appropriate, but the measure in the Bill will give them greater scope and enable them to issue more severe sentences than is currently possible.
No sentence can make up for the tragic loss of a loved one—a life cut short, a future obliterated, a family devastated—but the sentence can enable those left behind to feel that justice has been done. Today, in too many cases, they feel that justice has not been done. This reform to sentencing has been promised by the Government. Families who have lost loved ones have consistently been told that the reform will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. It may be difficult to find parliamentary time for a full sentencing Bill, but this Bill is short, specific and targeted. As I said before, the Bill does the Government’s work for them. The parliamentary time is now. Dangerous driving costs lives. For the victims’ families, the pain of their loss can be with them for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Government and hon. Members from across this House will join me, put this Bill on the statute book, and help victims and their families achieve justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Theresa May, Chris Grayling, Damian Green, Karen Bradley, Sir Graham Brady, Steve Brine, Gareth Johnson, Judith Cummins, Ms Marie Rimmer, Stephanie Peacock, Dan Jarvis and Chris Skidmore present the Bill.
Mrs Theresa May accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 167).
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Tuesday 21st July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 July 2020 - large font accessible version - (21 Jul 2020)
17:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of deradicalisation programmes in prisons—
“(1) Within three years of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a comprehensive review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on the effectiveness and availability of deradicalisation programmes in prisons.
(2) The review must include an assessment of—
(a) the effectiveness of existing programmes at reducing radicalisation and terrorist offending;
(b) how individuals are assessed for their suitability for a programme;
(c) the number of individuals assessed as requiring a place on a programme;
(d) the number of individuals assessed as not requiring a place on a programme;
(e) the average length of time individuals assessed as requiring a place on a programme have to wait to start a programme; and
(f) whether there is sufficient capacity and resource to meet demand for places on deradicalisation programmes in prisons.”
This new clause requires a review of the impact of the Act on deradicalisation programmes in prisons.
New clause 3—Financial Impact Assessment Report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three years of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a report on the financial impact of the provisions of this Act.
(2) That report must separately consider the financial impact of—
(a) extended sentences on the prison estate;
(b) extended licence periods;
(c) any increased staffing resources required for Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service;
(d) the extended offenders of particular concern regime; and
(e) adding polygraph testing to certain offenders’ licence conditions.
(3) The report may consider other financial matters.
(4) The report must compare the financial impact of the Act with the Impact Assessment for the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill published by the Ministry of Justice on 18 May 2020.
(5) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make an oral statement in the House of Commons on his plan to address the financial and non-financial issues identified in the report.”
This new clause requires a review of the financial impact of the Act.
New clause 4—Report on extended sentences for terrorist offenders: Scotland—
“(1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 210A(4) insert—
‘(4A) The report under section 210A(4), where it applies to a person convicted on indictment of a terrorism offence, must—
(a) take account of the offender’s age;
(b) consider whether options other than an extended sentence might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.
(4B) The court must take account of any points made by the report in relation to the matters in subsection (4A).’
(3) The Secretary of State must at least once a year conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of this section and their impact upon offenders.
(4) The report of the first review must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”
New clause 5—Report on extended custodial sentences for terrorist offenders: Northern Ireland—
“(1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1216 (N.I. 1)) (extended custodial sentences) is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 9, after paragraph (2), insert—
‘(2A) The pre-sentence report under paragraph (2), where it applies to a person convicted on indictment of a terrorism offence, must—
(a) take account of the offender’s age;
(b) consider whether options other than an extended custodial sentence might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.
(2B) The court must take account of any points made by the report in relation to the matters in paragraph (2A).’
(3) The Secretary of State must at least once a year conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of this section and their impact upon offenders.
(4) The report of the first review must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”
New clause 6—Review of effects on children and young offenders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a review of the effects of the provisions of this Act on children and young offenders.
(2) That review must detail any differential effects on children and young offenders in—
(a) sentencing;
(b) release of terrorist offenders; and
(c) the prevention and investigation of terrorism.
(3) The review must consider the impact of imprisonment under this Act on the physical and mental health of children and young offenders.
(4) The review must consider the influences on children and young offenders who commit offences under this Act, including but not limited to—
(a) the internet;
(b) peer-pressure; and
(c) vulnerability.
(5) When conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with Scottish Ministers.
(6) The review may make recommendations for further changes to legislation, policy and guidance.
(7) For the purposes of this section, young offenders include adults aged under 25.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the effects of these measures on children and young offenders. It would also require the Secretary of State to consult with Scottish ministers when conducting the review.
New clause 7—Review of legislation: Northern Ireland—
“(1) On an annual basis from the day of this Act being passed, a report that reviews the application of the provisions of this Act in Northern Ireland must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State.
(2) Annual reports under subsection (1) must be produced in consultation with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice and the Northern Ireland Executive.”
This new clause ensures that all measures in the Bill as they pertain to Northern Ireland shall be reviewed annually with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice and the Northern Ireland Executive, and a report shall be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
New clause 9—Review of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders—
“(1) Before sections 32 to 35 come into force, the Secretary of State must, within 6 months of this Act being passed, conduct a pilot of the use of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders.
(2) The outcome of the pilot must be reported to Parliament within 12 months of this Act being passed.
(3) This report must include—
(a) data on the number of terrorist offenders who have been subject to polygraph testing during the pilot;
(b) an explanation of how the results of polygraph tests have been used during the pilot;
(c) an analysis of the effect polygraph testing has had on the licence conditions of terrorist offenders;
(d) data on the number of terrorist offenders who were recalled to prison on the basis of polygraph test results;
(e) a recommendation from the Secretary of State as to whether sections 32 to 35 should enter into force following the pilot; and
(f) evidence of independent research on the reliability and value of polygraph testing of terrorist offenders.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct a pilot test of the use of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders and report the outcome to Parliament, in addition to setting out evidence for the reliability of polygraph tests based on independent research.
New clause 10—Review of sections 1 to 31—
“(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 31 of this Act to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to the imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review.
(3) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.
(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—
(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and
(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.
(6) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 31 of the Act to be conducted after one year.
Amendment 30, in clause 4, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) The pre-sentence report must—
(a) take account of the offender’s age;
(b) consider whether options other than a serious terrorism sentence might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.
(8) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (7) and consider whether they constitute exceptional circumstances under subsection (2).”
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 31, in clause 6, page 9, leave out lines 21 to 25, and insert—
“(11) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsections (1)(d) and (6), the court must consider a report by a relevant officer of a local authority about the offender and the offender’s circumstances.
(11A) Where the offender is under 21 years of age, the report must—
(a) take account of the offender’s age; and
(b) consider whether options other than a serious terrorism sentence might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender and the court must take these factors into account when forming its opinion under subsection (6).
(11B) In considering the report, the court must, if it thinks it necessary, hear the relevant officer.”
Amendment 32, in clause 7, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the offender is under the age of 21, in forming an opinion for the purposes of paragraph (2), the court must consider and take into account a pre-sentence report within the meaning of Article 4 which must—
(a) take account of the offender’s age; and
(b) consider whether options other than a serious terrorism sentence might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.”
Government amendments 7 and 8.
Amendment 33, in clause 16, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) Section 255 of the Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(5) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) The pre-sentence report must in the case of a serious terrorism offence under section 256(4)(b)(iii)—
(a) take account of the offender’s age;
(b) consider whether options other than an extension period of eight to ten years might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.
(4) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (3).’
(6) The Secretary of State must at least once a year conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of this section and their impact upon offenders.
(7) The report of the first review must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”
Amendment 34, in clause 17, page 17, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) Section 267 of the Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(5) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The pre-sentence report must in the case of a serious terrorism offence under section 268(4)(b)(iii)—
(a) take account of the offender’s age;
(b) consider whether options other than an extension period of eight to ten years might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.
(2B) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (2A).’
(6) The Secretary of State must at least once a year conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of this section and their impact upon offenders.
(7) The report of the first review must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”
Government amendments 9 to 16.
Amendment 5, page 21, line 30, leave out clause 24.
Amendment 52, in clause 27, page 23, line 24, after “unless”, insert
“the terrorist prisoner was at least aged 18 at the time of the commission of the offence for which the prisoner is serving the sentence, and”.
This amendment provides that only certain adult terrorist prisoners are excluded from eligibility for early release in England and Wales.
Amendment 53, in clause 28, page 24, line 12, after “unless”, insert
“the terrorist prisoner was at least aged 18 at the time of the commission of the offence for which the prisoner is serving the sentence, and”.
This amendment provides that only certain adult terrorist prisoners are excluded from eligibility for early release in Scotland.
Amendment 1, in clause 30, page 26, line 16, leave out “whether before or”.
This amendment would remove the retrospective application of this provision.
Amendment 2, in clause 30, page 26, line 17, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 20.
This amendment would remove the retrospective application of this provision.
Amendment 54, in clause 30, page 27, line 14, after “terrorism sentence” insert
“and the terrorist prisoner was at least aged 18 at the time of the commission of the offence for which the prisoner is serving such a sentence”.
This amendment provides that only certain adult terrorist prisoners are excluded from eligibility for early release in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 55, page 28, line 17, leave out clause 32.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 32, which extends the current polygraph testing requirements to adult terrorist offenders released on licence in England and Wales.
Amendment 56, page 29, line 8, leave out clause 33.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 33, which extends the current polygraph testing requirements to adult terrorist offenders released on licence in Scotland.
Amendment 57, page 30, line 25, leave out clause 34.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 34, which extends the current polygraph testing requirements to adult terrorist offenders released on licence in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 58, page 33, line 7, leave out clause 35.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 35, which extends the current polygraph testing requirements to adult terrorist offenders released on licence.
Amendment 35, in clause 52, page 43, line 40, leave out “to” and insert “, 34 and”.
This amendment would remove section 33 from the list of provisions that are brought into force through regulations by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 43, line 40, leave out “to 35” and insert “, 33 and 35”.
This amendment would remove section 34 from the list of provisions that are brought into force through regulations by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 4, in clause 52, page 43, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) Section 34 comes into force on such day as the Department for Justice of Northern Ireland may by regulations appoint.”
This amendment would mean section 34 could only be brought into force through regulations by the Northern Ireland Executive.
Amendment 36, in clause 52, page 43, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) Section 33 comes into force on such day as Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”
This would have the effect that provision in the Bill that relate to polygraph testing would only become operational if the Scottish Government asked for those provisions to be implemented.
Government amendments 20 to 29.
Alex Cunningham
In Committee, Members had a robust debate about many aspects of this Bill, which we support but believe can still be improved. I start with new clause 1 and the probation service.
We cannot begin to tackle terrorism without recognising the important role that the probation service plays in keeping people safe. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to commission a review and publish a report on the impact of the provisions in the Bill on the National Probation Service. It would have to consider the probation support provided to offenders convicted of terrorist offences, how probation support provided to offenders convicted for terrorist offences has varied since implementation of this Bill, the type and number of specialist staff employed by the National Probation Service to work with terrorist offenders, the turnover of probation staff, the average length of service of probation staff, and the non-staff resources provided to manage offenders convicted of terrorist offences.
For the probation service to be fully functioning and effective, it must have the resources it needs. The Minister said that the spending review last September laid out a significantly increased funding package for the Prison Service and probation service, which is supposedly flowing to the frontline, but the National Probation Service is in a far from satisfactory state, and we know about the disaster that ensued when large parts of it were privatised. Thankfully privatisation is no more, but we still have to get the service right.
The NPS has a workforce including 6,500 probation officers and a budget of more than £500 million. Earlier this year, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation painted a picture of a service in crisis, with hundreds of vacancies, overstretched officers and managers, and crumbling, overcrowded buildings, including hostels for recently released offenders. Inspectors rated all of its divisions as requiring improvement on staffing. None of the areas are fully staffed. There were high rates of staff sickness—an average of 11 days per person, 50% of which related to mental health difficulties. There are 650 job vacancies nationwide in the probation service—a full 10% of the establishment.
Although the probation service is not in the Minister’s portfolio, I am sure he will agree that that is not satisfactory. We can only hope that things are improving. In Committee, the Minister talked about the welcome resources being invested in the service and about the spending review coming this autumn. Can he confirm that he is satisfied that there are sufficient resources to achieve what he wants, or are Ministers bidding for more from the spending review? Perhaps more importantly, will he confirm that the necessary support will be put in place to bring the National Probation Service up to full strength, to tackle the issues raised in inspection reports, and to provide staff with the support they need for their mental and physical ill health, to help them back to work and while they are there, and put an end to the high sickness rate? All those things put pressure on the service and the ability of staff to cope with offenders day to day—in this context, with some of the most dangerous ones.
In Committee, I also asked about whether all probation officers will have counter-terrorism training, and the Minister addressed that in a letter to me. He said:
“Governors and front-line staff are being given the training, skills, and authority needed to challenge inappropriate views and take action against them…Staff are also trained how to recognise aspects of an offender’s behaviour which might indicate terrorist sympathies. Over 29,000 prison staff have been trained.”
We all welcome that.
The increased workloads for highly specialised and rare probation staff are a cause for concern. Research shows that more time spent with offenders is essential for proper assessment and rehabilitation, but that is not possible with such high case loads. The very long license cases, such as lifers and those with indeterminate sentences, are a special challenge for probation staff because they never really come off their case loads, and more new cases are constantly added. Specialist probation officers are thinly spread and consequently hold very high case loads of terror-related cases—over 120% of normal. That level is appallingly high, and the Government recognise that it needs to come down. Their recruitment of more specialists to manage counter-terrorism offenders is also to be welcomed. That said, the general issue with increasing the number of specialists in probation is that they can only be recruited from experienced staff, and with high sickness levels and a 10% vacancy rate, how can Ministers be confident that they can provide a quality service, not just for those convicted of terrorism or related offences but offenders in general?
There is a danger that huge amounts of experience are being lost and that lots of generalist roles will need to be backfilled with newly qualified staff before the more experienced staff can move on to specialist roles—and that in a service where a full third of all employees have less than three years’ experience in probation. I asked this in Committee, but I do not believe an answer was forthcoming, so can the Minister now tell me what modelling the Department has done on the expected net effect on the total probation caseload over the years and decades to come as a result of the changes in this Bill? Ad hoc measures are not good enough; there need to be properly considered measures and funding given to the probation service to make it an effective mechanism to tackle terrorism and do one of our country’s most difficult jobs.
I turn to the related issue of de-radicalisation programmes in prison, and new clause 2. When someone has committed a terror offence and has gone to prison, there is an expectation that this person will be kept away from mainstream society for the purposes of keeping the public safe, and an expectation that their time in prison will be used effectively. This means that all efforts will be made to ensure that the individual does not return to the same destructive path that they were on prior to being arrested. In order to achieve this, there needs to be a properly structured and expert-driven de-radicalisation programme available for all those who are identified as being in need of enrolling on such a programme.
For the purpose of informing Members who were not members of the Committee, I will reiterate a number of points I made during that time. Although the minimum sentencing for terror offences has been increased, there is a suggestion that we could simply be delaying inevitable further offences unless we take action to use the offender’s time in prison to de-radicalise them, and we can only do that if there is an effective de-radicalisation programme in place. While we heard in evidence that many good things are happening in our prisons around de-radicalisation, there were also concerns expressed about the adequacy of the programmes and their availability.
That does not just concern Committee members and witnesses. At last Tuesday’s Justice questions, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) pressed the Minister, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), on how programmes could be improved. Helpfully, the Minister replied:
“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.”
When I challenged her on the inadequacy and quality of the provision, she said:
“we continually evaluate the programmes that we operate within our prisons.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1361.]
If that is really the case, and if the Government are so confident that the programmes have been successful, what do they fear from commissioning a formal review of them and reporting to the House?
We really do need to know what is happening in prisons in relation to this. What programmes are being delivered? Who are they being delivered to? Who are they being delivered by? When are offenders undertaking the programme? How many de-radicalisation programmes is one offender in for a minimum sentence expected to cover? How is the success of these programmes measured? We need to understand the effectiveness of the programmes, where they work, where they do not, what can be improved, and what the Government are going to do to drive those improvements.
Neither the healthy identity intervention nor the desistance and disengagement programme courses, which form the main part of the programmes, have undergone any form of evaluation process to date. In Committee, the Minister said that most of the de-radicalisation work and programmes are done operationally inside the prison and probation service, and are not specified in legislation. He said that Ministers need the flexibility of being able to change guidance through statutory instruments, and I accept this. But we were never asking for the programme details to be placed in the Bill through this new clause—a new clause that would, I think, help to secure the public’s trust in our approach to tackling terrorism. This new clause is not about clearly outlining deradicalisation programmes in legislation; it is about reviewing how effective our deradicalisation programmes are, so it is only right that they are reviewed, with the results laid before Parliament.
That brings me on to the general financial impact of the Bill, new clause 3 and the resources it will need behind it for it to be successful and properly implemented. In Committee, the Minister told me that the impact assessment estimated an additional 50 people in prisons. Although I still believe that is an underestimation, bearing in mind the rise of far-right terrorism and other groups whose members will end up in the system, I will not rehearse those arguments yet again. I believe the cost of implementing this Bill is estimated to be about £16 million a year, but I do not think that honestly reflects the impact it will have on all service areas. Who knows, but providing the mental health support our prison and probation staff desperately need will be costly, and if we do not have that investment from elsewhere in the Department’s budget, we are not going to see the all-round service we all want delivered. So will the Minister confirm that he has covered the additional cost of creating space for new prisoners, the additional cost of having more than one specialist centre, the additional cost of having further specially trained prison officers and the cost for probation services of expanding the sentence for offenders of particular concern regime?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a detailed and comprehensive speech, examining many of these difficult issues, which we all face. I have reflected on what he has been saying, and I believe that the way to approach these difficult issues is by having an open mind and asking a series of questions, rather than coming at any of these things with pre-conceived ideas. I am grateful for his thought and his incisive questioning of the Government, in a spirit of cross-party co-operation.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He rightly says that this is about having an open mind. I was trying to persuade the Minister and the Conservative Members in Committee that they should have an open mind on a number of issues, because we are facing real challenges on deradicalisation programmes, the resources within the probation service and the fact that young people are going to be treated exactly the same as adult prisoners in the system—I will be coming on to that later.
We also want to understand whether the resources are available for the use of polygraphs and to deal with the impact on youth offender teams. I have already talked about the impact of longer licensing on the National Probation Service. Such measures as are in this Bill always have ripple effects, so we ask the Secretary of State to lay before the House, within three years, a report on the real financial impact of all these things. There should never be an issue of resources when it comes to justice matters, and a review would not only identify where there are issues, but arm the Secretary of State with the evidence he needs to resist further cuts to his Department’s budget and instead win some additional resources.
We should ensure that prisons are properly staffed and that those staff are properly supported, be it for their personal security or to provide them with adequate services when they suffer mental illness as a result of their job—services that we know are currently totally inadequate. I asked about these measures in Committee, but we still need reassurances. This is about not just funding for prison places, but the wider financial impact on society, especially when offenders get released from prison and need help rebuilding their lives. That is a particular concern for those who are young and may leave prison with no support system. These provisions do not come cheap, and I hope we are going to get some clearer answers on meeting the costs of the different services that I have laid out.
Throughout Committee, I stressed the importance of recognising that young offenders are different from older, adult offenders and that their age ought to be taken into consideration when they are being sentenced, even for the most terrible of crimes. That is why we tabled amendment 30, parallel amendments for Scotland and Northern Ireland and the remaining new clauses in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, myself and others.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I ask why an actual age is not included in amendment 30? There is an allusion to an age, but not a specific age. Will he outline why that was not included in the amendment when it was drafted?
Alex Cunningham
Personally, I thought the amendment was clear. It lays down very specific issues in relation to young people. That is why we tried to detail in Committee that young people are different and need to be treated differently.
Joy Morrissey
If we are talking about the age at which a person is convicted of a crime and serves this type of sentence, it would have been clearer if an age was included in the amendment, whether that was 13, 15 or 18, just to further the case for why young offenders should be given a less severe sentence.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Lady tempts me to start to rehearse all the arguments around the age of maturity. We know that children up to the age of 18 are treated differently under the law, much as the group between 18 and 20 are supposed to be treated differently. There is more and more evidence all the time. In particular, there have been some studies in Scotland—I am looking at the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for the SNP—that are starting to talk in terms of, “Maybe we should be looking at 25 as the age of maturity.” That is all the more reason why we have to think carefully about how we treat young people in the justice system, because young people ought to be treated differently. They have a better chance of being rehabilitated, and it is important we give them that chance.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I am slightly confused by the suggestion we should be extending to 25 years old when there are Members of Parliament who are under 25. Is he suggesting that somehow different rules should apply to them or that they are not yet at the age where they can appropriately represent their constituents?
Alex Cunningham
We are talking about issues of maturity here, not when somebody can be an elected a Member of Parliament. I think that Members can be elected at the age of 18 now. I do not see the point that the hon. Lady is making.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Looking at the evidence that we heard during the Bill Committee, am I right in understanding that the greater possibility of rehabilitating young people is what is being looked at here? It is about where we define youth. Does it stop at 18, or 21, or—as we are now looking at in Scotland in our consultation—25, in terms of not maturity generally but the ability to rehabilitate?
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, who has explained that far better than I could ever hope to; I very much appreciate that. Perhaps there are some MPs who need rehabilitating as well, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is another matter.
Is it right for a person, even if they are young, who has committed a serious offence to be put in prison for a particular period of time to protect the public, without their age being considered? We have to balance this properly. How long is long enough for punishment for a young person, and how long is too long to prevent the individual being effectively rehabilitated? Those who commit serious offences will be released from prison at some point. Surely the Minister agrees that we can lessen the time that an individual spends in prison with the aim of it being core to their rehabilitation; it is indeed preferable to a longer sentence, where hostility and deep-seated mistrust of the state simply develops and grows.
We know that this legislation cuts out the role of the Parole Board from any involvement with offenders sentenced under it. I think that it is lamentable that this also applies to young offenders, who, if involved with a specialist group of experts, could benefit tremendously from that. It is not straightforward when dealing with young people, and we should not pretend it is. We need to be smart, cautious and measured. Sadly, there are always some people, young or otherwise, who will never respond to a second chance, and the judges in their cases will act accordingly, but I want the judges to be better equipped than they are at present so that when they see there is a chance that a long fixed sentence for a young person is not appropriate and does not offer the best chance of rehabilitation, they have the flexibility to do something else.
As I said in my opening remarks, there is a need for specific requirements for Northern Ireland, but I will content myself with a few short remarks on new clause 7. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) has been speaking in detail with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long, and all the Northern Ireland parties about how we ensure that the measures in the Bill are compatible with the unique and well-established practices in terrorism-related sentencing and policing in Northern Ireland and, as we all know, are particularly sensitive to the political dynamics in Northern Ireland while ensuring that people in that part of the UK are kept safe and secure.
The mechanism proposed in new clause 7 would give some measure of assurance to the devolved institutions that their views are being heard by the Government. The Minister was reluctant to accept this amendment in Committee, but I hope that he will look at it much more closely.
Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, I have been very grateful to have formal and informal discussions with the Minister and to receive letters clarifying some of the issues raised in Committee. Last week, in response to my query about a technical amendment relating to section 61 of Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and sentences served in young offender institutions, the Minister confirmed to me and the Bill Committee that there were no plans to change the way young adults were accommodated in the prison estate. That I very much welcome, and I would be bold enough to ask him to reiterate his guarantee that section 61 will not be enacted.
As I said at the outset, I have, throughout the Bill’s progress, talked about young people being different and the need for them to be dealt with appropriately, so I was very surprised to have it confirmed to me by the Minister that some 18, 19 and 20-year-olds were not only in the same prison as older offenders but on the same wing and sharing the same social spaces. I am assuming that this mixing does not apply to terrorist offenders, but even if it does not, that practice is totally unacceptable. I would welcome news of a plan to deal with that very real issue, which today is putting younger prisoners at considerable risk.
In conclusion, I reiterate our support for the Bill and hope that the Government will act to address the very real issues that colleagues and I have raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Colleagues will be aware that there are a number of speakers who want to get in this afternoon. Sir Robert Neill has withdrawn, so I will go straight to Joanna Cherry, but after that, if colleagues speak for about five minutes, that will enable us to make some progress.
Joanna Cherry
I will start by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being slightly tardy in taking up my seat for this debate. No offence was meant. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). As well as sharing our country of birth, we share many of the same views about the Bill.
I wish to speak to new clause 6 and amendments 35 and 36, which are tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill). I will also speak to amendments 52 to 60, which have been tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). She chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the amendments reflect some concerns held by that Committee, on which I also sit, about our duty to consider the human rights aspects of any legislation that passes through the House.
The SNP has made it clear from the outset that we recognise it is the duty of any Government to keep our citizens safe and secure, and all who serve in Parliament have an obligation to assist in that endeavour. I and my colleagues in Edinburgh have assured the UK Government that we will attempt to be as constructive as possible, to ensure that the challenge of terrorism is met and that people across these islands are kept as safe is as reasonably possible. SNP Members are also mindful of our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the highest standards of human rights protections, and we have accordingly tabled a number of amendments to address the devolved aspects of the Bill, and raise some concerns about civil liberties.
Counter-terrorism is a reserved matter, but sentencing is not. The Scottish legal system, including policing, sentencing and parole, and the management of the Scottish prison service are devolved matters, and elements of the Bill that touch on those things will require a legislative consent motion. The Minister accepts that, and there are ongoing discussions with my colleague, Humza Yousaf, who is the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Until those discussions have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Scottish Government, SNP MPs cannot give the Bill their unqualified support, but we will continue to work constructively with the Government.
We are particularly pleased that the UK Government have addressed an issue that I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian raised in Committee—namely, the interplay between the new sentencing regime proposed in the Bill and the existing sentence of an order for lifelong restriction in Scotland. That unique sentence is imposed not so much for the crime committed but because the offender poses an ongoing risk. It was designed to deal with high-risk violent and sexual offenders rather than terrorists, and its purpose is to ensure that those people are not released until they are rehabilitated, and that even then they are subject to a risk management plan for the rest of their natural life.
I welcome Government amendments 9 to 16, which have been tabled to address the interplay between the new sentence and the order for lifelong restriction. As I understand it, they will ensure that an order for lifelong restriction will remain available to the Scottish courts when they are considering sentencing someone for a serious terrorist offence, provided that if an OLR is imposed instead of a serious terrorism sentence, the person sentenced must serve at least 14 years. I am pleased that the Government have taken our concerns on board, and we hope that the outstanding discussions on the legislative consent motion will have the same fruitful outcome.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and it was a pleasure to serve alongside her on the Bill Committee for this important piece of legislation. I guess it is something of a truism that the first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens, but that is precisely what this Bill seeks to do. As luck would have it, the seventh sitting of the Bill Committee took place on 7/7. I felt that morning, on that inauspicious, infamous date, that it was critical to put the debate we were having on the Bill in some kind of context, so I told the story of my friend Louise. I would like to tell her story again in this debate and in this Chamber.
On that day 15 years ago, Louise was on a train from Liverpool Street to Aldgate. The night before she had been in Trafalgar Square, celebrating the fact that London had just won its bid to host the 2012 Olympics. It was a very busy commuter train, so she was standing when the train was rocked by an explosion in the next carriage. Louise’s carriage filled with smoke and the lights went out. The train screeched to an appalling halt. She says she could feel her heart beating so hard that she could virtually hear it and thought it was going to jump out of her body, but she fought to keep calm amid the screams, panic and chaos around her.
Some people managed to control their panic and began trying to help each other. They called up and down the train for doctors, nurses and anyone who could help. Some people had fallen and some had hit their heads—it was just chaos. Some people were trying to get out of the windows between the carriages or trying to prise the doors apart, but none of that would work. Someone cried out that there was a body on the track. They waited in the dark. Some emergency lights were flickering on and off, but it was mainly dark for over an hour until Louise remembers seeing the very top of a policeman’s helmet outside the train in the tunnel. That was a very reassuring sight. She felt from that moment that everything was going to be all right and that she, at least, was going to get out.
Eventually, those who were able to move out of the way made way for the injured to be carried out or to walk past them. They were bloodied, black and bewildered. Many of them were bandaged with commuters’ possessions, such as belts, scarves and ties. After what seemed like forever, Louise was able to get off the train, but she had to walk past the bombed carriage. She said it looked like it had been ripped apart like a can of Coke. She passed two bodies on the track, covered up roughly by a fluorescent transport worker’s jacket. She saw a man who was badly injured being tended to by paramedics. He was barely clothed; the bomb had ripped the clothes from him. He was propped up against the tunnel wall and his entire body was blackened by the bomb blast.
Louise said it was very surreal to come from that black hellish atmosphere into the light and quite overwhelming. There were helicopters above. There were blue lights and sirens. There was a triage unit on the pavement where people were being treated. It is quite surreal, in a way, that she was just told to give her details to the police and then she just walked off on her own into London to try to find her husband and a cup of tea. She had no idea that she was covered, and her faced was absolutely covered, in soot. The fear, the panic and the shock came later. The overriding feeling she was left with was, why did she get into that particular carriage? Why did she not get into the next one? Why did she survive when so many did not? She was determined not to change her way of life, so she was soon back on the Tube and back at work. I think that that personifies an attitude that says, “This is not going to change our life. We will carry on the way we were before. Terrorism will not stop us.”
As we deliberated the Bill on that day 15 years afterwards, Louise was at Aldgate station placing flowers as she does every year. Many of her fellow passengers have never been back on a Tube. Some are still suffering from anxiety and depression. Some suffered life-changing injuries and some will never see the light of day again. This House and many Members have their own personal experiences of the savagery of terrorism, and I know we all want to do all we can to prevent future attacks. How can we do that? Today, in a very direct way, we can do a lot. We can do just what the Bill seeks to do: strengthen sentencing, limit early release, give the security services the best tools available to manage, and disrupt suspected and convicted perpetrators.
We are hearing, and I am sure we will hear a lot more, about the rights, youth, vulnerability and potential for rehabilitation of terrorist suspects and offenders. Those valid issues, and the issues addressed in many of the new clauses and amendments, are amply dealt with in the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that the best way that we can honour the victims, like Louise and many others, is to pass the Bill, intact, today.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is often customary to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but that would not seem appropriate given the contribution by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). It was incredibly poignant and powerful, though, and most appropriate given the Bill before us.
I was pleased to hear the contribution from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—I do not say that to cause her any discomfort—because we find common cause on the issue of polygraph testing. If I cast my mind back to my contribution on Second Reading, I recall that I spoke about the fact that there are distinct differences not only between our criminal justice systems throughout this United Kingdom but in the choices that we, as representatives, need to make about the appropriateness of embarking on an untested and unverifiable system that would ultimately be used to impose further restrictions on somebody’s liberty in a way that we cannot satisfy ourselves is at all appropriate.
I am pleased to find common cause among Members from different parties who have concerns about the creeping integration of the use of an unverified method of assessing offenders. We understand that it is restricted to licences and, now, to three or four discrete areas of offence, but just as the Scottish are being cautious, I believe that we in Northern Ireland will be cautious, too, about the introduction of such measures. To that end, I was pleased to hear chief commissioner Les Allamby from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission give evidence to the Bill Committee and highlight his concerns from a Northern Ireland perspective.
I recognise the thrust behind amendments 3 and 4, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry); however, I wonder whether they are necessary. If I reflect on clause 34, I see that it is for the Department of Justice Northern Ireland to decide whether the use of polygraphs is necessary. That provision should give us enough comfort about the operational introduction of polygraph testing in Northern Ireland. We should be slow to water down or remove the fact that counter-terrorism and national security measures are reserved to this Parliament. I say that believing not that the devolved institution in Northern Ireland should not have a role, but that we should be cautious in seeking to attain power on national security and counter-terrorism grounds, recognising the divergent views in our Northern Ireland Executive, some of the competing arguments that would be made and that ultimately we may get less protection should cross-community consensus be required for the introduction of those powers. I am therefore not minded to support amendments 3 and 4.
A recurring theme throughout the passage of the Bill has been its retrospective application. The Minister will recall that I was concerned that Northern Ireland was not included in the retrospective application of the extension of serious terrorist offences, and that I was pleased whenever Northern Ireland was included and that the implications, perceived or otherwise, of article 7 applications on the retrospective nature of the offences were overcome. I say that because when we take such decisions—when we decide as a Parliament that we are going to extend the custodial period of someone’s sentence—we need to do it with our eyes wide open. That is not to ignore the fact that an argument could be made that article 7 is engaged, but we have to reflect thoughtfully on what the policy imperative is for doing so and whether it can be robustly defended if there is a challenge.
Through the consideration on the Floor of the House, in Committee and elsewhere, strong and compelling legal arguments have been made that differentiate between a penalty and the enforcement of the penalty. It is appropriate that we, as parliamentarians, say clearly on the record that we are not changing the penalty for anyone who is currently in prison and subject to a terrorist offence sentence. Their sentence remains the same. How that sentence is operated and enforced is different. Uttley v. United Kingdom, Hogben v. United Kingdom, Kafkaris v. Cyprus and Grava v. Italy all indicate the distinction between the extension of a penalty and the enforcement of it.
While there are particular issues in Northern Ireland that we should be alive to, and we must approach these issues with our eyes wide open and recognise that some will seek to manipulate them for propaganda purposes, we must not fail to be prepared to stand up robustly for the rule of law within our country and say, “No. You may not like it—you may not like the rational choice that we as democrats make within our legal system, but we will not cow to the threat of violence, agitation or propaganda that seek to subvert the norms and principles of democracy that we all enjoy.” On that basis, I cannot support amendments that seek to remove the retrospective application of the Bill.
I will conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there was a suggestion of a notional time limit, and you have been gracious enough to sit calmly as I move towards a conclusion. I think there is some sensible merit in new clause 7, which has been approached and drafted by Her Majesty’s Opposition rationally. It recognises that there are issues in Northern Ireland and that it is important over a period—be it one, two or three years—to carry out an impact assessment of how the Bill has operated in Northern Ireland and whether it has made a significant positive or detrimental impact, and then to lay a report before the House in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Executive. It is a sensible, well-drafted and appropriate new clause. Even if it is not pressed to a vote, I hope that, in taking decisions such as this with eyes wide open, recognising that there could be concerns about the operational impact and the opportunity for people to manipulate the democratic and legitimate choices we make, the Government will review this legislation and consider whether the consequences were warranted and these choices were appropriate.
Alicia Kearns
It is a pleasure to follow such considered comments from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I want to start, unsurprisingly, by commending the Government for bringing forward this vital legislation. I also want to pay my respects to all those who have lost loved ones and the survivors of terrorism, for whom this legislation is a form of justice—particularly those who lost loved ones in the attacks at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham.
While the United Kingdom should be rightly proud of our record in combating radicalisation and terrorism, it is clear that more needs to be done, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. Many of us have rightly said that the first job of any Government is to keep their people safe. It is clear that that was at the top of Ministers’ minds when they drafted this. While I disagree with the Opposition on many points made today, I welcome the overall collaborative spirit that has emerged across the House. I note, for example, that many of the Opposition amendments—particularly the first five in the group—deal with questions about the effectiveness of the legislation. I am glad that the Opposition care so much that the Government’s priorities are implemented effectively.
I also welcome the Government’s considerations relating to lifelong restrictions for terrorist offences. Their work with Scottish MPs on that is a clear example of the Government working with Opposition parties to achieve the best results for all. For that reason, I welcome Government amendment 8. It is also right that the Government have tabled amendment 9, to ensure that a serious terrorism offence is convictable on an indictable offence. That is in line with ensuring that serious offences of any kind are included in the thrust of the Bill’s provisions. I also want to express relief that the Opposition have not sought to water down in any significant way the thrust of this legislation, because it is what the country wishes to see.
Prior to becoming an MP, my career was dedicated to our national security, specifically counter-terrorism, so I want to address some of the comments of witnesses. Jonathan Hall QC described the reforms as “pessimistic”. These reforms are not pessimistic; they are realistic. When people are radicalised, they are not half radicalised, or radicalised on a Monday, a Wednesday or a Friday; it is an enduring process that sticks in hearts and minds for a long time. Deradicalisation and rehabilitation are not quick, easy or straightforward. Indeed, I would challenge whether anyone can ever truly be deradicalised.
To be clear, that is the comment not of a politician who wishes solely to sound tough on crime, but of a politician who has sat in the same room as former terrorists who had been willing to blow up people in this room, and when I say that people cannot be rehabilitated, I am talking about the ones who claim to be. The psychological drivers that drew them to terrorism remain for life, so it is right that when we do this, we be very careful about the legislation we put in place.
Even with all the resources of government, which I have personally seen brought to bear, this process takes significant contact and monitoring—I would argue lifelong monitoring. The Government must have the time and the framework necessary to minimise the risk to our nation. This is not some scientific experiment conducted in an empty, tightly controlled space, but a highly individualised series of one-to-one interactions. When you engage with someone, you have to work with them on what makes them specifically vulnerable; there is no solution, there is no silver bullet, this is not straightforward. I do not accept the idea that any individual is ever truly deradicalised.
On that point, I take issue with the Opposition’s criticisms of the UK’s counter-radicalisation and rehabilitation work. I do not think they have the same understanding of exactly what the Government do to keep us safe. Whether in the middle east, in Europe, at home, or anywhere in the world—I have worked in many of those places—the UK is recognised as a global authority on anti-radicalisation work. We are a world leader on counter-terrorism, and the Bill will help to cement that further.
I want to talk specifically about young people and culpability, and the idea that under-18s or under-25s should be more stripped of their agency or personal responsibility for their actions. I would cite an example that has been in the media recently: that of Shamima Begum. I was working at the Foreign Office on counter-Daesh operations when she went to fight. She travelled after the beheadings of aid workers. She travelled knowing full well that a Jordanian pilot had been burnt to death. Many Members may not know that Daesh practised the burning of Jordanian soldiers seven times before they eventually put him in a box and burnt him to death.
This moves me because I had to watch that video. I spent years of my career watching brutalities carried out by people aged 16, 17, 18 and, undoubtedly, 20 to 25. I have held the hands of people who had been whipped by Daesh members who were 17 years old, and I have held the hands of British citizens whose loved ones were lost in Iraq and Syria and against whom known crimes had been committed by people aged 18 to 25, so I refuse to accept that those people cannot be held culpable. According to our law, criminal responsibility can be put back to 12. I made the rather blasé comment earlier about there being Members of Parliament who are under 25. Are people that age less culpable for the decisions they make?
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the hon. Member is saying, and clearly I respect her experience, but does she accept that we are not seeking to raise the age of criminal responsibility? We are simply suggesting that the age at which an extended determinate sentence can be imposed should be raised. There is no question of raising the age of criminal responsibility.
Alicia Kearns
I accept that point, but I fundamentally believe that public protection trumps rehabilitation, not least when evidence of rehabilitation is wishy-washy at best. Those individuals are just as culpable. I would never turn to a constituent whose son or daughter had been murdered by a 17-year-old somewhere in Rutland or Leicestershire and say that person was less guilty because they were 17. It is the same as with terrorism. It is the most heinous crime, and criminal responsibility changes for the most heinous of crimes.
I also cannot agree that 25-year extended licences are excessive or too costly. The Government must have the tools to be vigilant and aware of the threats from those who have been convicted of the worst offences. That is why I strongly recommend and welcome the provisions to allow extended sentences for offences with a terrorism connection, and it is entirely fitting that this be recognised in clauses 2 and 15, among others, which will enable a variety of offences, from kidnapping to weapons training, to be recognised as potentially having terrorist intent and offenders to receive either serious terrorism sentences or extended determinate sentences. Too often, in my experience, for those who go on a weapons training event—something delightful to talk about when they are playing some game like “Fortnite”—it is the start of a journey that leads to far worse.
I also want to touch on the role of the Parole Board, which I know was a matter of significant debate for the Committee. Terrorism radicalisation necessarily involves national security and long-term strategic debate. The Committee heard from witnesses that the Parole Board was not philosophically or organisationally best suited to dealing with terrorist offenders and that the Government should use a multi-agency approach when considering these risks. I fully agree, and I am glad that the Bill recognises that, too. We can do it and, as we are global leaders in this regard, our security staff are second to none.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I do want to give time for the second group of amendments that we are discussing on Report, so I am imposing a five-minute limit in order to get everyone in.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I recognise her deep experience around these issues.
I primarily want to talk to amendments 1 to 5 in my name and in the names of others. At the outset, let me stress my support for the Bill overall, and for the aims of tackling terrorism and of keeping our people and our communities safe from that threat. All of us from Northern Ireland have been deeply touched by terrorism in a very particular way over the past 50 years, but given the references that have been made to 7/7 and its anniversary that has just passed, I would like to read into the record thoughts about my cousin, Ciaran Cassidy, who was brutally murdered at Russell Square. His remains laid unidentified for six days, which brings home the enormity of the issues with which we are dealing. I accept the need for tougher sentencing and recognise that that brings very significant benefits, but it is important that we acknowledge that there is a much wider picture here, which involves trying to address terrorism at source and to prevent people falling into terrorism and being influenced by others. It is important that we bear that wider context in mind.
My main concerns lie in the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I certainly see attractions in the overall uniform approach across the UK in avoiding a two-tier system, and, indeed, Northern Ireland does want equal protection in that respect from the broad principles and framework of this Bill. None the less, we do need to recognise that, when it comes to implementation of those principles, a one-size-fits-all approach does not always work, and that flexibility needs to be considered in certain circumstances.
My main focus is around clause 30 and the retrospective application of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 to certain terrorist offenders in Northern Ireland, primarily a small number of dissident republicans. I am happy to see a tougher sentencing regime going forward, but I am concerned that the retrospective application will, in practice, bring relatively little benefit and could be counterproductive in a number of ways.
To date, the Government have only really addressed this issue in terms of the argument around interfering with judicial discretion and the potential implications for article 7 of the European convention on human rights. We can beg to differ on that particular issue, and we will see what happens down the line. In particular, I want to stress the concern around the potential propaganda opportunities that could be given to dissident republican terrorists and their fellow travellers.
Some people may seek to twist what the Government are doing into an argument that this somehow shifts the goalposts and creates a context for political imprisonment. We have had a sad history in Northern Ireland, from internment to the hunger strikes and beyond, of terrorists and their allies using the situation in prisons and framed grievances for wider agitation in the community and recruitment purposes.
The terrorist threat in Northern Ireland remains severe. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security service are doing an excellent job in tackling that terrorism, but it is, ever, a difficult challenge that they face. There are, sadly, still ongoing incidents and bomb incidents, and people losing their lives. We need to be mindful of that.
The Minister will be aware that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has raised concerns about clause 30. He will also know that my party colleague, the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland, has raised those concerns and had a number of conversations with him. Indeed, there is a considerable question mark over whether the necessary legislative consent motion will get through the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
It is important that there is ongoing discussion and dialogue beyond the passing of the Bill through the Commons later today, whenever it hits the other place for consideration. Let us not finish that dialogue today. I will press not press my amendments to a vote, but I urge the Government to listen to the very genuine concerns I raise from the Northern Ireland perspective.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who spoke with great insight. I want to touch on the purpose of sentencing, which is primarily: to punish the offender; to reduce crime by preventing an offender from committing more crime; to act as a deterrent to others from committing similar offences; to reform and rehabilitate by changing an offender’s behaviour to prevent future crime and reoffending; and to protect the public from an offender and from the risk of more crimes being committed. When it comes to terrorism and terrorist offences, we must shout from the rooftops that, as a united country and as a people, we will not tolerate terrorist criminality even if it is from young adults. This behaviour is morally wrong, and there is no place for it in our society.
We are all incredibly lucky to live in such a free and tolerant country. We have freedoms not always found in other countries, which we too often take for granted. We must get tough, with zero tolerance as a country on people who wish to do us harm and try to disrupt our way of life. Some of these terrorists can have a long-term goal, and we need to be sure that, when they are released, they no longer seek to do us harm. We must face reality that, for some terrorist offenders, the risk to do harm endures, and we cannot be certain whether rehabilitation is simulated or real.
Terrorism comes in many forms to create fear and anxiety, and to stifle debate. Some people forget that terrorism has an impact on our human rights by affecting our enjoyment of the right to life, liberty and physical safety. It impacts on individuals, our communities and our society by undermining our peace and security. It threatens our social and economic development. An individual’s security is a basic human right, and protection of individuals is a fundamental duty of Government. I therefore welcome the Bill and its creation of a new serious terrorism sentence for dangerous offenders whose acts are very likely to have caused or contributed to multiple deaths. The 14-year minimum jail term, with up to 25 years spent on licence, will act as a real deterrent and send a strong message that this country will not tolerate and will not be cowed by the ill will of terrorists.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have read and listened to past debates on this issue with great interest, and particularly those on parts of the Bill that bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I very much commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on his contribution and the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) on his constructive comments.
I understand the concerns of the Department of Justice on possible legal action that could be taken with regard to early release. Such concerns are well founded: we need only look at the publicly funded judicial reviews in Northern Ireland through the legal aid system that will not help a father get access to his child but will allow a terrorist to sue the state—a debate for another day. There is no doubt that certain firms in Northern Ireland will be watching the votes and events of today with great anticipation, rubbing their hands together at securing another free ride from the taxpayer. Yes, there will be a case, but do we shy away from that? We are the lawmakers in this House—the legislators—and it is incumbent on us all to ensure that the laws we pass will withstand scrutiny. We do not and must not shy away from doing the right thing because lawyers may become involved. Well done to the Government for underlining to the Department of Justice and our Justice Minister that there will be governmental support in relation to any legal challenge. I very much look forward to reminding them of that at the appropriate time.
May I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) for her personal account of her friend in relation to that? I do not think there is anybody in this House who does not understand what such an account means. Of course, as representatives from Northern Ireland, we have all lived through the troubles over a period of time. I was just thinking of some of them—La Mon, Abercorn, the Darkley gospel hall murders, Bloody Friday. Those are examples of how people have lived through the most violent times.
I support the Government in their call for minimum sentences. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, I do not believe that this takes away the judge’s power and discretion. I believe that it shapes the policy to say that, no matter the extenuating circumstances, there are occasions that deserve minimum sentences, and terrorism is one of them.
It was one of the greatest surprises to me in Northern Ireland that the Good Friday agreement allowed mass early release, with no thought to rehabilitation. That was never right, and we are facing the consequences of that now, as we see the work of too many former offenders who are not reformed offenders. Indeed, some of them are still involved in such activities. I can never understand how our wee nation was tricked into accepting this as a payment for peace. The fact is that, even today, the threat of what these violent offenders will do is still having repercussions. That is the problem when we negotiate with unrepentant terrorists: we will continue to negotiate with them and the threat of violence for ever and ever.
I understand this well, yet I do not believe that this can prevent right being done in this place. It is right and proper that any terrorist with any cause in any part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland understands that terrorism is something that this House will stand against with its every ability. Whatever the mantra of the attacker and whatever rationale that person may have, we will not allow justice to be pared back just because of the threat of upset. The message is clear in this Bill and I support it.
I absolutely take on board the comments from the Prison Service. I believe it is essential that we have additional funding in place to give extra support to prison officers and to ensure that our prisons have appropriate staffing levels. I understand the need for new clause 2—I also refer to new clauses 5 and 7—on the deradicalisation programmes, because in my constituency paramilitary activity is probably at a height. Indeed, it is at a height, and that is probably the case in other constituencies as well. I think the hon. Member for North Down and I have very similar constituencies in relation to paramilitary activity.
In my office, we have seen at first hand the effects of paramilitaries at home getting young men hooked on drugs and with a massive debt that can be magically repaid if they carry out an action, They are told: “Sure, son, if you’re caught, you will hardly do any time for your first offence”. I know cases where that has happened, and I really do ache for those young people who are trapped, yet we cannot allow this exploitation to continue. I have great difficulty with this issue, and again I would highlight it to the Minister. I absolutely understand that zero tolerance means what it says—we will not tolerate this. There are hard decisions to make, and make them this House will.
Having lived with this heartache over the years and with the threat of terrorism for my entire life—some of my family members and friends have as well—I know that we must have firm but fair laws that send a message, and sentencing, with all its harshness and all its importance, is a very real and important way to reinforce that. That is why I wanted to talk about this today. I do hope, when the Minister replies, that he will reply with positivity. I know he will.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am sure that all Members of this House agree that there are few Bills as important to the safety and security of the British people as this one, and I commend the Government for bringing forward this Bill. We have seen from recent tragic terror events in Streatham, London Bridge, Manchester and even here in Westminster and, over the last few decades, from the IRA terrorists, how vital this Bill really is. I commend the Government for taking strong and decisive action, as promised. Let me be clear: terrorism and supporters of terrorism in all its forms are wrong and morally reprehensible, and we must do everything in our power to stamp out terrorism, stamp out its supporters and make the country safer for all.
I shall focus on amendments that pertain to sentencing and the release of terrorist offenders. As my hon. Friends are aware, the probation reforms that come into force in 2021 will bring all offender management under the National Probation Service. That marks a shift from the present situation in which only higher-risk offenders are dealt with by the NPS.
New clause 1 would require a review of
“the impact of the provisions in the Act on the National Probation Service.”
However, the Bill already strengthens the ability of the Government and the police, prison and probation services of the UK to monitor and manage the risk posed by terrorist offenders, and individuals of terrorist concern outside custody. The Bill will allow more effective intervention when that is required, and will enhance the effectiveness of the measures available to authorities as a result of a combination of probation reforms. The Bill renders new clause 1—
Alex Cunningham
I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has addressed the issue of the probation service, because I talked about the crisis that exists in that service. Is he satisfied that it is operating in the way it needs to be to cope with the current business it has to deal with, let alone the increased activity arising from this Bill?
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am reassured that the Prison Service and the probation service are doing all they can to address this. Of course we want to put more into the probation service and to make sure that prisoners of all sorts are properly looked after, and I believe that this Government and this Bill have that at their very heart.
Furthermore, we must guard against a flurry of statutory reviews, which are costly, time-consuming and unnecessarily bureaucratic. As previously outlined by Ministers, there are already various routes of scrutiny of how the probation service and the Bill are functioning. Parliament has great power to question and to debate, and there is no lack of scrutiny in this regard. The Government have accepted that it is important to keep a close eye on these matters and to ensure a close, continued dialogue with all the Bill’s stakeholders.
New clause 2 would require a
“review of the impact of the…Act on…deradicalisation programmes in prisons.”
It is said that there is limited evidence of the impact of longer prison terms on reoffending, but in fact the evidence available to us indicates that prisoners in custody for longer periods do come to terms with their offending and are able later in their sentences to undertake constructive remedial activities. I believe that long sentences do work.
We also want to protect our young people and keep them safe from the evils of radicalisation. There is no dispute over that, but new clause 6 would mandate the Secretary of State to review
“the effects of the provisions of this Act on children and young offenders.”
It is worth remembering that the young people in question are very few in number. In 2019, only four of the 22 people convicted of terrorist offences were aged between 18 and 20, and not all of those four would even meet the criteria for the serious terrorist sentence. Therefore, we are talking about astonishingly small numbers for those aged between 18 and 20. Given those statistics, the Government position is that it may be the case that nobody of that age will be affected by the Act, and as such requiring a review by statute does not seem sensible or a good use of time.
These amendments address important concerns and certainly come from a good place. I thank those who have tabled the new clauses for throwing a spotlight on the National Probation Service, deradicalisation programmes and the radicalised children and young offenders. However, I believe the best mechanism to deal with these issues is the scrutiny provided by parliamentary debate. I agree that we must follow the aforementioned matters closely, and I firmly believe that we have all the tools needed to do that. In the context of this Bill, statutory reviews are not necessary or particularly effective. I greatly welcome this Bill, as laid down by the Government on behalf of the people of Rother Valley, and I greatly commend and approve of the Government’s dealing with terrorism and the robust way we are dealing with terrorists, both in this country and abroad. We must not let them come to our shores and if they are on our shores, we must stamp them out and stamp them out effectively. So I look forward to this Bill being passed.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), and I pay tribute to some of the heartfelt contributions, such as the ones from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). This is an incredibly emotive topic. Since I was elected, I have made the case on a number of occasions that sentences must do what they say on the tin and be transparent to the public. The untenable status quo, where criminals are consistently let out part-way through their sentences cannot hold, and it damages public faith in our criminal justice system that sentences are not honest. When it comes to terrorist offences, the stakes could not be higher. Both the Fishmongers’ Hall terrorist attack in November last year and the Streatham attacks in February were carried out by known terrorist offenders who had been released automatically at the halfway point of their sentences. This Bill will see dangerous terrorist offenders spend longer in prison, and that is an important step in the right direction.
We must avoid any attempts by Her Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon to make the Bill any less robust when it comes to offenders between the ages of 18 and 21. The Opposition have made the case that young adults are inherently different in terms of their maturity and that they should be treated differently, but it cannot be forgotten that we are still referring to adults who have committed the most serious terrorist offences. These adults, to all intents and purposes, have the same rights and responsibilities as every other adult in the country. Labour Members are attempting to diminish the actions of young adult terrorist offenders, but I have frequently heard them extol the maturity of people even younger than 18 when it suits them, particularly with regard to extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. Rather than gerrymander the different stages of adulthood when it suits us, we must be prepared to be clear that at 18, adults should be able to fundamentally tell the difference between right and wrong, and should know that any action they take that is likely to result in the deaths of multiple people is completely inexcusable.
We must be similarly robust in the case of Shamima Begum, the young terrorist who left our country to join the murderous ISIS terror organisation, which is responsible for the deaths of thousands, including British citizens. Her actions were a betrayal of this country and everything it stands for. When she was standing in a Syrian refugee camp afterwards, she said that she did not regret joining ISIS. I share the anger of many of my constituents at the Court of Appeal’s recent decision to allow her to return to the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, this represents another decision from our courts that is completely detached from the public interest and what the majority of the law-abiding public consider to be appropriate for someone many believe has committed treason.
Alexander Stafford
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the Government that this decision by the courts is reprehensible and we should do everything we can to fight it?
Tom Hunt
I could not agree more. We need to be robust in fighting it. It is not just on this issue but on many others that there is this disconnect.
The Bill is an important step in our fight against the scourge of terrorism, which seeks to attack the foundations of our society and cause divisions between us. The mandatory 14-year prison sentences for the most serious terrorist offenders that the Bill includes will provide a strong deterrent against terrorism and send a clear message to those who want to spill blood on our streets out of hatred for our country that they will not be tolerated. I call on the Government to go even further over the coming months in looking at the out-of-touch decisions that are coming from our courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) rightly said, and to deal with the Shamima Begum case.
This is a very sensitive issue. I appreciate that terrorist offences have touched the lives of many right hon. and hon. Members. We need to be robust in confronting it. We cannot make excuses and apologies for the people who take these actions. Yes, it is important—I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—that, for the public interest, people are able, under certain circumstances, to rehabilitate, but it is also important for the public interest for there to be a strong deterrent, and a message to deter future evil acts like some of those that we have discussed today.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the passionate speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt).
I spoke in the debate back in February when the Government passed emergency legislation to ensure that terrorist offenders would no longer be released early and automatically. I am glad that we are now doing all that we can on this. We must continue to root out terrorism from our streets. I am pleased that the earliest point at which terrorist offenders will even be considered for release is after they have served two thirds of their sentence. Indeed, no terrorist offender will be released before the end of their full custodial term unless the Parole Board agrees.
This Bill will ensure that serious and dangerous terrorist offenders spend longer in custody, and it improves the ability to monitor and manage those of concern when they are released. It is only right that offenders still viewed as a threat to the public will be forced to spend the rest of their term in prison. Members of my party stood on a manifesto that promised to keep us safer, with investment in our police force and our Prison Service, and that included stronger measures to deal with terrorism.
It was thanks to the exemplary work of the Prison Service during the pandemic that I recently wrote to the governor at HMP Bure in my constituency, to voice my gratitude and appreciation for the fantastic work that the prison staff, healthcare staff and civilian staff there are doing, given the unprecedented challenges we face, during covid. We must do all we can to strengthen confidence in our criminal justice system and make society as safe as we can from cowardly acts of terrorism, which devastate lives and communities. That could be no better emphasised than by the heartfelt and moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). The Bill, along with the doubling of the number of counter-terrorism specialists and probation staff, will absolutely do that.
We already have a MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—review, a Prevent review an HM inspector’s report and three-year post legislation. It is unnecessary to have yet another layer of review. A serious terrorism sentence for the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders is a welcome move. We are going to get tough on terrorism and ensure that those that set out to hurt innocent people will spend at least 14 years in prison and up to 25 years on licence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said, recent attacks show that the Bill is necessary; that sentencing needs toughening, but so does the investigation, the monitoring and the management of offenders.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that those who have carried out acts of terrorism in the past, and perhaps have not been held accountable for them until this time, should be subject to these new laws that are coming in, because there would be no early release for them, as has been the past history? Those who murdered the four Ulster Defence Regiment men at Ballydugan some 25 or 26 years ago, those who murdered my cousin, Kenneth Smyth—does he agree that it is time that anyone who has never been made accountable, is made accountable as well?
Duncan Baker
I absolutely agree that we should make sure that those people who have committed absolutely heinous acts face the full prosecution of the criminal justice service.
I will finish by saying that giving the Secretary of State expanded powers to impose additional restrictions, such as imposing overnight curfews, and to gather more information on devices, such as electronic devices, would give us even more control measures and services to eliminate risk even further. This is about restricting, interrupting and stopping dreadful attacks, such as those that happened at Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham. As the Justice Secretary has said, the Government are pursuing every option to tackle terrorism. It is with that in mind that I welcome the Bill. The largest overhaul of terrorist sentencing and monitoring in decades, it delivers what we need to keep our communities safer and come down hard on those that set out to ruin lives.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful intervention speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker).
It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee. As someone who lived in London in the 1980s and ’90s, I remember all too well the impact of terrorism on this nation’s capital. A massive lorry bomb was left outside the London overground station at the bottom of my then street in Bethnal Green and the local policeman, whom I knew, discovered it. We must not forget the emotional toll on frontline officers of dealing with such terrorist incidents; he has to live with that for the rest of his life. There are other parts of the Union that have to live with it more frequently. We all need to work together as one nation to deal with these issues. There are many human stories, with which we sympathise.
Serving on a Committee examining the proposed legislation seeking to counter terrorism was an interesting challenge, but a privilege. I thank the Minister for how he steered the Committee through the issues covered in the legislation. In Committee, I found the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) very useful in dealing with the issues. It was also very interesting to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) had to say in Committee meetings, and the contributions of all those other Members who sit in this Chamber today.
Having considered all the evidence, done my research and read back over the years, it is my clear view that the overwhelming weight of the evidence heard by the Bill Committee sessions was that the provisions of this Bill will make the public safer and will greater enable us to defeat terrorism and contain former terrorists.
This law is proportionate in what it seeks to do in relation to the rights of prisoners. Of course, we need to keep our people safe. The Opposition’s request for further reviews and delays is not proportionate with what we need to do today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to move on now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Many hon. Members today have reminded the House that our first duty as Members of Parliament is public protection. The very moving contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), and the story of her friend, Louise, who was caught up in the terrible terrorist atrocity of 7 July 2005, very powerfully reminds us of that. On that awful day, 52 members of the public were murdered and 784 were injured.
We have heard powerful testimony from other Members who have had personal, first-hand experience of terrorism, including the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose family members suffered at the hands of terrorist murders. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) said that in her professional career prior to coming to this place, she had first-hand experience of the victims of terrorism. That testimony should remind us how important our duty is. By taking this Bill through Report stage, we are discharging that duty to our constituents.
It is worth pausing to say how constructive the discussion on this issue has been, on a cross-party basis, on the Floor of the House here today and previously at Second Reading and in Committee. It is an example of this House and our political system working at its best. Members from all sides of the House can be very proud of the way we have conducted the debate on this extremely important Bill.
Let me turn now to some of the comments raised by colleagues this afternoon, starting of course with my opposite number, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who gave a characteristically detailed speech opening the proceedings. He started by commenting on new clause 1 on the probation service, which stands in his name and those of his hon. Friends.
Let me just take the opportunity to reassure him and other Members, once again, that probation service resources were significantly increased in the spending review last September. Moreover, earlier this year, counter-terrorism police resources were increased by £90 million and we are in the process of doubling counter-terrorist specialist probation officers, in addition to those very large numbers who have been given special training.
In addition, we are deepening multi-agency public protection arrangements. We are also establishing a counter-terrorism step-up programme, so I believe our work in the probation sphere is something all of us can take great confidence in.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister is right to mention the additional funds and so on that have been forthcoming, and we very much welcome them, but we have a probation service in crisis. Would he like to comment specifically on the fact that there is a high sickness rate and a 10% vacancy rate? How on earth can they do their job properly if we do not have sufficient of them?
Chris Philp
Numbers in the prison and probation service have been increasing over the past few years. As I said, a great deal of extra money was provided in September last year, and that will most certainly have a further positive impact.
I move on to new clause 2, which the hon. Gentleman also commented on, and the question of deradicalisation. We heard evidence in the Public Bill Committee on 30 June, which some Members will recall, from Professor Andrew Silke, Professor of Terrorism, Risk and Resilience at Cranfield University. He told us that, overall, he thinks that the UK’s approach to deradicalisation,
“is seen as one of the better available approaches…internationally”. ––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2020; c. 84, Q175.]
That is, again, something we can take great confidence and pride in. Initiatives such as the healthy identity intervention programme, which Professor Silke expanded on at some length, are very effective. That is one of the reasons why reoffending rates for these terrible terrorist offences are only between 5% and 10%.
The shadow Minister asked about financial impact. I confirm, once again, that the cumulative impact on the total prison population will be less than 50 prison places, and the cumulative impact on the probation service will never be more than 50 places. To put that in context, there are about 80,000 people in prison and about a quarter of a million people on probation. On the financial impact, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the figure he had in mind may not have been quite accurate. The financial impact, according to the impact assessment, is a one-off cost of £4.2 million at the outset, followed by £900,000 a year thereafter, because these numbers, thankfully, are so small.
Jim Shannon
The Minister and everyone in the House will be aware that there have been three attacks in the last eight months carried out by those who were in prison and came out. Does the Minister feel that the investment that the Government are giving here will help to address that issue and will reduce those things happening, which is what we all want to see?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe that the measures that we are taking in the Bill, the additional resources given to counter-terrorism policing and the changes we made back in February in the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 will provide exactly the protection he is asking for against ruthless terrorists of the kind he is describing.
On the question of reviews, which new clauses 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 speak to, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) pointed out, we already have quite a large number of reviews under way. There is the MAPPA review, being conducted by Jonathan Hall QC. There is, of course, Her Majesty’s inspectorates of prisons and probation, which produce frequent reports themselves. There is the Prevent review, which we will debate in the second group of amendments and, of course, there is the standard three-year review after legislation. With great respect, I think we have a lot of reviews going on. The numbers involved with this legislation are small, and I feel that it will be more than adequately reviewed by the mechanisms I just laid out.
Young people have been mentioned by many Members, in connection with new clause 6 and other clauses. The Bill recognises that those under the age of 18 are different, and no new minimum sentence is applied to them. It is up to the judge to decide in each case, and according to individual circumstances, what is the appropriate sentence for someone under the age of 18. There is a great deal of judicial discretion, for all the reasons laid out by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and others.
I understand the arguments that have been advanced about the ability to reform and rehabilitate those over the age of 18, and possibly extending that into the early 20s, but the cohort of offenders that we are addressing this afternoon is, thankfully, very small—a handful of offenders between the ages of 18 and 21 who have committed offences of extraordinary seriousness. These are terrorist offences where a life sentence can be imposed, where a judge has made a finding of dangerousness based on the facts and a pre-sentence report, and where a risk of causing multiple deaths was present. Given that small but serious number of offenders, I think a 14-year mandatory minimum sentence is appropriate. Rarely, there is the ability for judges to find exceptional circumstances, but when offences are that serious, it is right to take that action and protect the public. There may be other debates to have another time about how quickly people mature and how we should account for that, but for that small and dangerous cohort it is neither the time nor the place to advance that argument.
On legislative consent motions, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West for her comments about Government amendments 9 to 16, and the changes made to orders for lifelong restriction. She properly raised that matter in Committee, and we fully acknowledged the points that she and her colleagues made, and are delighted to fix the issue this afternoon. On the application of polygraphs in Scotland, as she said, we are in discussion with the Scottish Government. We are edging ever closer to a point of blissful—I almost said “blissful union”—perhaps I should say “blissful unity” to avoid aggravating the question. We are edging towards a position of blissful agreement, and I hope we reach that in the near future.
Some Members questioned the use of polygraphs more generally. We took extremely compelling, and at times entertaining evidence from Professor Grubin, who is a worldwide expert in this area. Contrary to what one Member said, polygraphs are not untested, and 5,000 such tests have been used in connection with sex offenders in England and Wales. In between 60% and 70% of cases, the use of a polygraph elicits information that would not otherwise have come out. That is either because the offender volunteers it—they know a polygraph is going to be used and they volunteer information that they would not otherwise have provided—or because it prompts a negative reading and a follow-up investigation can occur.
I emphasise that nobody is recalled to prison as a result of a negative polygraph test, and nor are they deemed to have breached their licence conditions. It simply prompts further investigation, and while not always accurate, such tests have been found to be useful in prompting that disclosure or further investigation. In that context, I draw the House’s attention to one of the independent reviewer Jonathan Hall’s notes on this topic. On 4 June, paragraph 23, he stated:
“I therefore concluded that polygraph testing is likely to be a valuable additional means of gathering information relevant to terrorist risk for terrorist offenders on licence.”
Jonathan Hall thinks that polygraph tests are an effective and good idea.
On Northern Ireland, the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Strangford and for North Down raised the question of applying the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 provisions retrospectively to Northern Ireland. The UK Government believe that that is a lawful thing to do—that it does not infringe article 7 or any common law principles. We believe that terrorism measures are reserved and that we should treat the United Kingdom in those matters as one, but they do engage parts of the LCM mechanism, and we are therefore in detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long. I had an hour-long conversation with her earlier this week and, again, we hope to make progress on that point in the coming week or so; I think she will come back to me in the very near future. I stress that these provisions affect terrorist prisoners on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland equally. They do not seek to penalise or victimise any one side or the other; they apply equally, and I ask Members to keep that important point in mind.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks, particularly about how we can best work together as a Parliament, and I join him in paying tribute to the hon. Members across the House who shared personal experiences and testimonies—particularly the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). If we had had to be convinced to support the Bill, perhaps those experiences—in particular the experience of the friend of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford—would have been sufficient to convince us.
The Minister’s ambition to have a sentencing regime in place for serious terrorism and terrorism-related offences has our support—no delay and no watering down—but he needs to ensure that the service is properly equipped and provides the services needed. I was therefore rather surprised—“stunned” is the word I wrote on my bit of paper—that the impact of introducing this new legislation will be less than £5 million for new prison places, an extended probation service and additional workers in the system. I cannot quite understand where that number comes from.
However, I am sure the Minister will be relieved to know that all I ask now is that he and his Home Office colleagues reflect on the challenges that we have made. I will withdraw new clause 1, but we will return to amendment 30 later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Lone terrorists: Review of strategy
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person who meets the criteria for qualification for appointment to the Supreme Court, as set out in section 25 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
(3) A review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) counter-terrorism policy;
(b) sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders;
(c) he interaction and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), “public services” includes but is not limited to—
(a) probation;
(b) the prison system;
(c) mental health services;
(d) local authorities; and
(e) housing providers.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(6) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”—(Conor McGinn.)
This new clause ensures that the Government orders a judge-led review into the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists including, but not exclusively, current counterterrorism and sentencing policy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (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 discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 32, page 29, line 7, at end insert—
“(4) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—
(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;
(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or
(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”
This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in England and Wales.
Amendment 60, in clause 33, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(8) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—
(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;
(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or
(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”
This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in Scotland.
Amendment 61, in clause 34, page 33, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—
(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;
(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or
(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”
This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 40, page 34, line 22, leave out clause 37.
This amendment removes the provision that lowers the standard of proof to reasonable grounds.
Amendment 37, in clause 37, page 34, line 25, leave out
““has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.”
and insert
“, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds, believes.”.
This amendment would raise the standard of proof for imposing a TPIM under the proposals in the Bill.
Amendment 39, in clause 37, page 34, line 26, leave out “suspecting” and insert “believing”.
This amendment would create a higher bar for the standard of proof under these proposals.
Amendment 42, page 34, line 27, leave out clause 38.
Amendment 41, in clause 38, page 34, line 31, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (3)(a), after “met” insert “and the court gives the Secretary of State permission”;
(zb) after subsection (3)(a), insert “(ab) In determining the extension, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.””
Amendment 46, in clause 38, page 34, line 31, at end insert—
“(za) For subsection (3)(a), substitute “may be extended under subsection (2) only if—
(i) the Secretary of State believes on the balance of probabilities that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity;
(ii) conditions C and D are met; and
(iii) the court gives the Secretary of State permission to extend the TPIM notice.”
This amendment will provide that any extension of a TPIM notice will require (i) a higher threshold to be met (“on the balance of probabilities”), (ii) the Secretary of State must reasonably consider that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual (Condition C), and that it is necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity, for the specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual (Condition D), and (iii) judicial approval.
Amendment 47, page 35, line 21, leave out clause 39.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 39, which allows the Secretary of State to vary the relocation measure in a TPIM notice, if it is necessary to do so for resource reasons.
Amendment 48, page 36, line 27, leave out clause 40.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 40, which widens the scope for imposing a curfew beyond overnight.
Amendment 49, page 36, line 32, leave out clause 41.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 41, which inserts a new polygraph measure which can be imposed on TPIM subjects to test if they are complying with their TPIM measures, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.
Government amendment 17.
Amendment 50, page 38, line 3, leave out clause 42.
This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 42, which introduces a new drug testing measure which can be imposed on TPIM subjects, to test for Class A and B drugs.
Government amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 38, in clause 47, page 40, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In section 20(9) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (support for persons vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism) for the words from “within the period” to the end substitute “by 1 July 2021”.”
This amendment would reinstate a statutory deadline for the independent review of the Prevent strategy, which will have to report by 1 July 2021.
Amendment 51, in clause 47, page 40, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
“(a) in subsection (8), replace the words “6 months” with the words “2 years”;
(b) in subsection (9), replace the words “18 months” with the words “3 years”.”
Clause 47 omits the current statutory deadline for (a) making arrangements for an independent review of Prevent and (b) laying before both Houses the report and any recommendations of the review of Prevent. Instead of removing the statutory deadlines, this amendment provides for new deadlines: in respect of (a), 2 years beginning with the day on which the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act was passed (12 February 2019) and in respect of (b), 3 years beginning with the day on which the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act was passed.
Conor McGinn
The overriding priority of this Labour Opposition is and always will be to keep the public and our communities safe. I want to concentrate on the three amendments that our Front Benchers have tabled on behalf of the official Opposition, conscious of the fact that we have little time and I wish to hear from colleagues on the Back Benches who did not have the opportunity to discuss these issues in Committee.
As we—including me, as shadow Security Minister—said on Second Reading and in Committee, the tragic events at Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham showed that there was a clear need for legislation, and subsequent events in Reading have only affirmed that. We on the Opposition Benches are committed to being forceful and robust in the fight against terrorism, so we welcome the Bill and in principle support its introduction. We have also sought to thoughtfully scrutinise the Bill, both to gain assurances on concerns and to attempt to improve it and ensure it is up to that most important task of keeping people safe.
To delve into new clause 8, following the shocking and tragic incident in Reading on Saturday 20 June, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary called for a judge-led review of the Government’s strategy for tackling the dangerous and growing menace of lone attackers. Reading was the third time in seven months that such devastation had been witnessed on UK streets, with lone attackers responsible each time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who showed such leadership and thoughtfulness in the days after the appalling attack on his community.
We on the Opposition Benches have no doubts as to the immense skill, bravery and dedication of our police and security and intelligence services. New clause 8 is fundamentally about supporting them as they tackle extremism from root to branch, because they cannot fight the battle alone. We need to look at the range of services we all rely on, particularly when we want to identify, monitor and treat subjects who pose such a huge threat to wider society.
Our proposals would make provision to assess the systemic response needed for the emerging and disturbing phenomenon of lone terrorists. A judge-led review of the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with them could effectively do that. It would address counter-terrorism policy and sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders and the interactions and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks. It would also undertake an analysis of a wide range of key public services, including our probation system, the prison system, mental health services, housing providers and local authorities, each of which can intervene at critical points.
The review would build on prior research and expertise, such as the extensive work carried out by Lord Anderson, the previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. That work has already provided insights into how we might better connect the current systems. His review’s proposal for multi-agency centre pilots would involve the identification of newly closed high-risk subjects of interest, the sharing of data by the Security Service and counter-terror policing with other agencies, such as local authorities and Departments, and the enrichment of that data using the databases of multi-agency partners. The review also highlighted barriers to local partners’ involvement in managing subjects of interest, including the challenges of resourcing.
Our public services must have the tools they need to intervene and work together in the most effective and efficient manner possible, particularly as many of the services have interactions with individuals who give them real concern. We need to undertake an assessment of the systemic response needed to confront the dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers, with all the necessary security safeguards in place, and I thank the Minister and the Security Minister for discussions on that.
Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, is looking at the issue in a review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary. My understanding is that the review is currently with the Home Office. Can the Minister say a little bit more about that and perhaps commit to publishing it before the Bill reaches the other place, which I think would provide some assurance?
Turning to amendment 38 on TPIMs, we fully agree that the mechanisms must be robust and agile to help the police, the Security Service and their operational partners to do the job of keeping the public safe. As reflected by the amendments that the official Opposition has tabled, as well as those of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), it is fair to say that we feel the Bill’s proposed changes to TPIMs will have a profound impact on the regime, especially when taken together.
We want TPIMs to be as effective and efficient as possible, and when those on the frontline in policing and counter-terrorism say that the changes will be useful, we fully trust and support their assessment and will do all we can to assist them. We will also, however, seek assurances that proper safeguards are in place. We would all want and expect to see such safeguards on measures of such importance in a democracy such as ours. If the standard of proof is to be lowered while simultaneously making possible a potentially indefinite TPIM by removing the current limit, then scrutiny, oversight and safeguards will take on a new-found importance.
We must remind ourselves that a TPIM notice can involve a wide range of measures: overnight residence requirements, relocation, police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from certain places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, and limits on the use of telephone and computers, as well as a ban on holding travel documents. Those are robust measures and, in my view, rightly so, but we must not forget that TPIMs are a restriction on rights for people who have not yet been convicted of any crime. It is not in the interests of anyone to allow such individuals to remain indefinitely on TPIMs, either for their own sake, for society’s, or, crucially, in terms of bringing them to justice.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the concern about TPIMs is not just the breadth of measures available but their indefinite nature against people who have not actually been tried and charged?
Conor McGinn
I do, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work she has done on this issue and her commitment to it. I am sure the Minister will have heard what she says. It is something I raised in Committee and I did receive some assurances from the Minister, but I think we would wish to hear—not just in the light of what my right hon. Friend says, but of what the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said when he made a similar point—what the Minister is doing to ensure those safeguards are in place.
Jim Shannon
It is very important that we look at TPIMs to make sure they are usable, but does the hon. Gentleman agree it is very important that the Secretary of State’s hands are not tied by legislation, but is able to respond to any emergent terrorism attacks or activities that take place in a way that is effective? Surely that has to be prominent precedent to follow?
Conor McGinn
The hon. Gentleman speaks with both great personal dignity and authority on these matters. I agree. We want the system to be agile and to be able to respond. The Bill places a very significant power on the Secretary of State. In seeking to ask the Government for assurances, we want to ensure the system itself is robust, because those protections allow authority and credibility in terms of being able to respond to the ongoing terrorist threat. The amendment we propose would ensure that there are reasonable and probable grounds for a TPIM to be issued. The higher bar would create safeguards without harming the robust nature or operational utility of TPIMs, which we want to be as impactful as they can possibly be to keep people safe.
We acknowledge that it was a Labour Government who, upon introducing control orders in 2005, imposed a standard of proof, as proposed in the Bill, to require only reasonable grounds for suspecting an individual had been involved in terrorism-related activity. That was then raised by the coalition Government in 2011 with the creation of the new TPIMs regime, and again by the Conservative Government in 2015. However, I cannot help but reflect on the words of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to the Bill Committee, when he said:
“If it is right that the current standard of proof is usable and fair, and I think it is, in a word, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 7, Q6.]
I think the Minister has to respond to that challenge. We need assurances from the Minister today, and an operational, administrative and procedural perspective for making those changes.
We would also like clarity on an exit strategy, given the indefinite nature of what has been proposed. Our concern with an open-ended or enduring TPIM regime is that it could see difficult cases languish, with no realistic plan for a resolution of any kind. Indeed, under the proposals, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation confirmed to the Committee, we could conceivably see someone who has been convicted of a terrorism offence being free from constraints before someone who has been placed on an enduring TPIM. That kind of situation is intolerable and I hope the Minister will again respond to those concerns, alongside the arguments of many colleagues in the House in relation to TPIMs and polygraph testing, which, while useful as an additional information source in certain contexts, we know is controversial and untested in the counterterrorism sphere. I do not think it would be unreasonable to run a pilot scheme, as per new clause 9, so that before making such costly national changes we could see proper independent evidence of the polygraph’s reliability and utility in the specific context of terrorist offenders. We all want an effective and efficient TPIM regime to help to save lives and protect our country’s citizens from harm, and we want to work with the Government to get it right.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) on the Opposition Front Bench. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said, and I hope the Minister will address the points he made, because we want to be constructive. We all support the overall thrust of the Bill, but my concern, as Chair of the Justice Committee, is that we do not do anything—albeit inadvertently and for good reasons—that undermines the checks and balances that are a normal part of the criminal process.
That is why the change in the burden of proof in relation to TPIMs needs more justification put behind it. Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, is highly regarded in this field, and the Minister has quoted him with approbation on a number of occasions. In this instance, he does not regard the case as being made out. If the Minister takes a different view, with respect, we need something more substantial as to why that is the case. There may be good reasons, but it cannot be done on a purely speculative basis. It cannot be on the basis that it may be useful to have this wider test. It might engage some people outside the jurisdiction in ways that we cannot currently in terms of gathering evidence and intelligence, but that case has to be made. Having voted on two occasions to increase the burden of proof to where it currently is, I would like to have a pretty clear sense that there is a compelling reason for reversing those decisions—and there may be, but I think the Minister owes it to us to set that out, and we need Mr Hall to set out why he comes to a different view. We may be persuadable, but it is important that the case is made and that the House understands that.
I accept that there is an overall three-year time limit on the working of the Bill, but I am concerned that, without a time limit, the TPIM will become the default mechanism and more like a control order. We surely all ought to recognise that, wherever possible—wherever proper, admissible evidence can be obtained and proceedings can be safely and securely brought—if people have done the vile things that we are talking about, which pose a real criminal threat to the security of this country and its people, the normal and proper course ought to be to prosecute through the normal due process. An alternative means of dealing with this should only be undertaken in the most exceptional circumstances. I can see that there may sometimes be such circumstances, but again, that case needs to be spelt out.
The third issue that I wish quickly to deal with is polygraphs. The Law Society takes the view that the suggestion of the use of polygraphs in some of these circumstances is more to persuade people psychologically —that is the phrase it uses in its briefing—against breaching the orders. That may be valuable in itself, but we ought to be wary of the limits of polygraphs’ usefulness. There are mixed views in academic, scientific and legal circles about the reliability of polygraphs. I do not have a fixed view about them, but I think we should approach their use with caution and proportionality.
Sir Robert Neill
I am always happy to give way to my hon. Friend and near neighbour.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend and south London neighbour is kind for giving way. Let me reassure him on his point about the limits of polygraphs. We understand and accept that they have limits, which is why a negative polygraph result on its own can never result in a recall to prison or licence conditions being deemed to have been broken. All a negative polygraph result could do is prompt further investigation by other means, which I hope provides him with the reassurance he seeks.
Sir Robert Neill
That is a very helpful reassurance for today’s purposes, and I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister said that. It is an important point, and I am glad that he takes this on board. Sometimes, for the best of reasons, there can be a mission creep with these measures, which could lead to a broader spread of their use in the criminal justice system, and that would be a matter of concern. If he says that the use is very specific, I accept his word on that, but it is important that we continue to keep this under review and do not have unintended mission creep. As we all know, it is often easy to present perfectly benign and reasonable reasons for doing something that departs from the normal checks and balances, but it then becomes entrenched and permanent and spreads.
In that spirit, I take the Minister’s assurance, but he will understand why it is important that that issue is debated and that reassurances are given that the overall integrity of the justice system will not be affected by these changes. That has dealt quickly with the issues that I sought to raise. It was perhaps a record brevity, but I hope that brevity does not reduce the import of the issues raised.
Joanna Cherry
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I endorse his concerns about the provisions in relation to TPIMs. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and I have tabled amendments 39 to 41 in relation to the proposed changes to the TPIMs regime. I am also speaking in support of amendments 46 to 51 and 59 to 61, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and signed by me. I will try to keep my comments brief, because I went into these issues in some detail on the Bill Committee and I want to allow others who were not on that Committee to speak.
First, I want to say something about the Prevent strategy review. I endorse what the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said about that. It is important to remember that it was a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and a successful amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, which imposed a requirement on the Government to initiate an independent review of Prevent. It has been delayed for reasons that we have heard a lot about, and I think the delay is most regrettable. Clause 47 of this Bill removes the time limit for conducting the review. We in the Joint Committee on Human Rights have concerns about that and we would like there to be a time limit, hence the amendments we have tabled. I am happy to associate myself with the date suggested by the official Opposition.
I note in passing that the delivery of the Prevent strategy in Scotland is devolved, and that although national security is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government’s delivery of the Prevent strategy reflects a rather different procedure. I will not take up too much time with that.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that the delay of the review has caused quite a lot of concern in many communities who want better terrorist prevention legislation? Unfortunately, Prevent has demonised Muslim communities and put unfair duties on teachers and NHS workers. All those individuals want better terrorism prevention, but they will not get that if the review is delayed further.
Joanna Cherry
I endorse what the hon. Lady says. It is important to remember that black, Asian and minority ethnic communities—particularly the Muslim community —need the Prevent strategy as much as the rest of us, but they must not be demonised by it. That is why I referred to what has happened in Scotland. The Scottish Government, working closely with the Muslim community in Scotland, have managed to avoid that degree of resentment. This review is important for all communities in England and Wales, where unfortunately the same thing has not happened.
I turn to TPIMs. The Scottish National party and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are concerned that a case has not been made out for the changes that the Government wish to make. Others have referred to the views of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall QC. In the detailed evidence that he gave to the Bill Committee, he described the combination of clauses 37 and 38 as
“a double whammy…not just reducing the standard of proof but allowing TPIMs to endure forever.”
I asked him about the possibility of safeguards, and he suggested the very safeguards that are set out in amendment 46, which is in my name and that of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham. Jonathan Hall said that
“if it were right that a TPIM should continue beyond two years, at least at that stage the authorities should be able to say, on the balance of probabilities, that the person really is a terrorist. That is an example of a safeguard.”
He went on to say:
“Turning to the question of enduring TPIMs, another safeguard could be to ensure that a judge would have to give permission—in other words, to treat going beyond the two years without any additional proof of new terrorism-related activity as requiring a higher threshold, or some sort of exceptionality or necessity test, as a further safeguard for the subject.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 15-16, Q33.]
I urge the Government to consider incorporating into the Bill safeguards similar to those suggested by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and set out in amendment 46.
As has been said, the problem with the change in the standard of proof is that no operational case has been made for it. I will not anticipate what the Minister will say later, and I may intervene on him if we have time. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, who is appointed by the Government and charged with looking at these matters, has said that
“there is reason to doubt whether there exists an operational case for changing the TPIM regime at this point”.
I suggest that the Bill Committee heard nothing in evidence to challenge that. He said that he had had discussions with the Government but had not been able to identify a cogent business case. That is what is missing here. Although this affects only a small number of people at present—of course, it might affect more if the standard of proof is lowered—these are people who have not actually been convicted of any offence, so if the Government want to make such a significant change, it is really important that they bring forward a clear case for doing so.
Julie Marson
I am interested, as someone from a business background, to hear the hon. and learned Lady refer to business cases. We always have facts and figures that we can look back on historically. Is not the challenge for Government always to anticipate risk that has not happened? We are forever looking behind us, and the consequences are so great when those risks are missed, but this is actually the perfect opportunity for a Government to look forward and anticipate those risks. The risks might involve someone who has been active in Syria, for example, where we do not have that proof, where someone can perhaps take an opportunity for two years to bide their time, knowing that at the end of that period, they might be subject to a higher burden of proof, or just go off the radar.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but that is what the current TPIM regime is designed to do—to anticipate risk and to keep a close eye on people who have not committed an offence yet in a way that could mean that they are prosecuted, but who may be a risk to our safety. She gives, for example, the problem of people returning from Syria. That is clearly a significant problem, but it has existed for a number of years, and the Committee did not hear any evidence that the security services are unable to deal with the problem of people returning from Syria because of the current standard of proof. I use the words “business case” loosely; an “operational case” might be a better phrase. We need an operational case based on examples to justify why this change is needed.
All of us here care about having a TPIM regime in place that does the job. There is no suggestion that the current one is not doing the job and no clear operational case for it to be changed. We would be failing in our duty as Opposition parliamentarians if we did not test this in the way that we are, and I will leave it at that for now.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I will speak briefly. As I did on Second Reading, I would like to associate a lot of my comments with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who again outlined with clarity some of the main issues in the Bill that I think will be challenged in another place. I hope they are to a degree and that the tyres are kicked a little harder.
We need a little more clarity from the Government on why we are moving to this much lower standard of proof. However, I am particularly pleased that the Minister has given clarification on the issue of the polygraph test. On time restrictions, I totally understand what my hon. Friend was saying about sleeper agents. Over the last few months, we have seen people going to ground for perhaps several months, or even years, and then re-emerging, but I think that there has to at least be some oversight of that and of the use of TPIMs.
Finally, I support Government amendment 18 and amendment 50. I do not see why it would be unreasonable for drug testing to be part of the TPIM regime. I generally welcome the legislation, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of these points at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are going to have to introduce a time limit of five minutes to get in as many as we can. The Minister will come in just before 5.50 pm
Ms Abbott
I rise to speak in support of the amendments. The stakes in any debate about terrorism and how to combat terrorism successfully are extremely high, because these are issues that involve the lives and liberties of all of us. Children as well as adults have lost their lives in some of these terrible incidents, particularly in the horrific Manchester Arena bombing. Police officers have been murdered. We were all shocked by the murder of a fellow MP, Jo Cox, and I was a Member of this House in the ’80s and ’90s at the height of the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign, so, please, there is no one on the Opposition side who does not take the threat of terrorism seriously. However, it is extremely appropriate that Parliament should not be nodding through counter-terror legislation but should be subjecting it to proper scrutiny, because that is in the interests of us all. At the heart of that scrutiny has to be: will this legislation help minimise terror attacks?
Governments of all parties, including my own, have tended to want to argue that measures that undermine civil liberties are the answer to terrorism, but sometimes such measures run the risk of being a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. It is in that light that I address my remarks to the Prevent programme. The Government previously committed to a review of Prevent. I can only ask: where is the review? My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), speaking from the Front Bench, described Prevent as controversial. It is not just controversial; it is a toxic brand, and I would argue it is increasingly counterproductive in the fight against terrorism that we all want to support. We should look at a replacement for the Prevent programme. It is not that good work has not been done in the name of Prevent—I visited some of those programmes in another role—but increasingly it is not doing the job it was established to do and, because its reputation is so toxic, it is not as effective as it could be in combating terrorism.
If we examine the terror incidents that have been inflicted on our communities in detail, we find that very few of the perpetrators have ever been in contact with a Prevent programme. At the same time, Prevent casts a hugely wide net over people, particularly in the Muslim community. In 2017-18, 7,300 people were referred to the Prevent programme, and the overwhelming majority of those were incorrect referrals. In fewer than one in five cases was there any discussion of these individuals at a Channel panel, and fewer than 400 people have received support from the Channel programme. No wonder, to many communities that find themselves targeted, it looks and feels like a trawling operation. I remember that in counter-terrorism debates with reference to the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign, it was former Army officers in this House—not people on my side of the Chamber—who argued against measures that could be a recruiting sergeant for terrorists.
As we know, when Ministers are challenged on Prevent, they respond as if any criticism of it is leading to an attempt to abolish our counter-terrorism efforts altogether. I want to nail that one. As Ministers know, Prevent is only one strand of the Contest strategy and we support the other three strands of pursue, protect and prepare. Serious consideration should be given to how all of those can be enhanced and made more effective. But, from all the evidence and all the people and communities I have spoken to, I conclude that Prevent is in danger of being counterproductive, alienating communities and ultimately making the fight against terrorism harder.
A more effective anti-radicalisation programme could and should be constituted. It would involve communities themselves. It would not be imposed on communities, but it would be working with communities, relying on people’s intelligence information, their sensitivities and their very real concerns, and the very real concerns of the overwhelming majority of people in this country who are opposed to terrorism in all its guises. Working with communities and relying on them, not demonising them and ostracising them, is the way forward.
In conclusion, all of us on both sides of the House have a great responsibility in fighting terrorism. The most important duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and we on the Opposition Benches feel that very strongly, but the safety and security of our people in the fight against terrorism cannot be upheld by knee-jerk reactions, simplistic formulations or programmes that prove to be counterproductive. An impartial review of the Prevent programme is long overdue. The fear is that now there is too much political capital invested in the Prevent programme for it to change course, but the fight against terrorism is too serious to be taken lightly. If something is not working, we need to fix it. That is why the time is right to review Prevent and to start again with an entirely new programme with the same aims, but a programme that works with communities rather than demonising them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We did add some time—[Interruption.] No, it is fine. We added a bit of time because we have just redone the maths and the time limit is now six minutes.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I wish to start by endorsing some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the use of polygraphs. The Minister will know that I have been in touch with him a number of times on this particular issue, and I accept his assurances that they will be used simply for behavioural science purposes and not for legal purposes.
I wish to speak to amendments 40 and 42. As others have said, there have been a number of tragic terrorist attacks this year and there is an urgent need to protect people from further terrorist violence, but we need measures that will keep the public safe, not give the Government free rein to restrict the rights of innocent people on a never-ending basis based on little more than a hunch. We must ensure that our security services have the tools and resources that they need to do their jobs, but we must also ensure that any new powers and legislation will be necessary, effective and proportionate to the threats that we face. That is not the case when it comes to clauses 37 and 38, as they would massively expand the Home Secretary’s powers to impose terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which can include curfews and electronic tagging. These changes would essentially mean a return to control orders, as Members from all parts of the House have pointed out, and they were heavily criticised for getting the balance wrong between national security and civil liberties and were then replaced by TPIMs by the coalition Government in 2011.
There is minimal evidence that putting power in the hands of a single Minister to impose curfews and tagging will do anything to keep people safe, but it will put the rights and freedoms of innocent people at risk. These changes are opposed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Amnesty and Liberty, and the Liberal Democrats are also opposing these two clauses today. We had tabled amendments to remove them from the Bill and to keep the existing safeguards in place, and we were pleased to transfer our names to other amendments that seek to do the same.
The Liberal Democrats will continue to demand an effective, evidence-based approach to combating terrorism. Let me end by pointing out that this is the eighth counter-terrorism Bill in 10 years. If more legislation was the answer, we might have stopped these kinds of attacks by now.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
As terrorism evolves, the modus operandi of terrorist groups starts to move. If more legislation has to be brought in at a later time, does the hon. Lady accept that we have to do that to evolve with the terrorist groups and how they operate, and it is about getting that fine balance right?
Daisy Cooper
Yes, of course I accept that there will be occasions when more legislation is needed, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, her Committee has taken evidence, and there is no compelling evidence as to why these two measures on the burden of evidence and the renewal of TPIM orders are needed.
There must be a much greater focus on effective measures that encourage de-radicalisation and rehabilitation, but instead we have in these two clauses the Government preparing for a power grab that could genuinely destroy innocent people’s lives, without presenting the public with a single shred of evidence that these measures will do anything to keep people safe or that the existing measures should be changed. That is why we will oppose them.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
It is our duty to reflect, calmly and seriously, on what we need to do to give people real security. This includes having the courage and strength to stand up as a matter of conscience and speak out when we see things around us that are wrong. That is why I must rise to say that the approach laid out in this Bill is fundamentally wrong. Terrorism suspects who have not been convicted of any offence now face expanded and potentially never-ending measures to control their lives. In the words of Rachel Logan, Amnesty International’s UK legal expert,
“It was never right to drastically curtail people’s liberty on the basis of secret, untested evidence using control orders or TPIMs—and we seem to be diving headlong into that territory where the standard of proof is extremely flimsy and people’s liberties can be curtailed on an indefinite basis.”
Indeed, there are real problems with the protection of human rights in the UK. In many areas, particularly in the spheres of immigration control, national security, counter-terrorism, freedom of association and speech, and the treatment of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, UK law has been the frequent subject of criticism from experts in the UN Human Rights Committee and from the Council of Europe.
For some time, many have raised concerns that our approach to counter-terrorism is perceived by some to have been modelled on Islamophobic stereotypes, policies and political structures. That is why it is utterly extraordinary that the Bill removes the existing statutory deadline for the completion of the independent review of the Prevent programme. As people will know, Prevent is widely criticised for fostering discrimination against people of Muslim faith or background. It was developed without a firm evidence base and is rooted in a vague and expansive definition of extremism. It includes overt targeting of Muslim children in schools and has meant that our Muslim young people, in particular, are increasingly being viewed through the lens of security. Many, including some in this Chamber, have expressed how they have been moved and inspired by the Black Lives Matter protesters all around the world. It is an absolute insult that rather than listening and learning as people were calling out the state regarding racism, Islamophobia and discrimination, this Bill will further entrench discrimination against Muslims.
As someone who has first-hand experience of the rise in Islamophobia over the past decade, I know that every single day people of Muslim backgrounds like me face discrimination and prejudice. It is not just about enduring offensive remarks and presumptions, bad as those are, but about living with a real and serious constant threat to our faith group. At the same time, far too often, the foreign policy of successive Governments has fuelled, not reduced, the threat to us all. Yet recently we learned that the UK is to resume sales of arms to Saudi Arabia despite concerns that they could be used against civilians in Yemen in violation of international humanitarian law. That is why my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse know better than most that we must never again embark on illegal wars, imperialism and destruction but instead adopt a progressive, outward-looking global view driven by social justice, solidarity and human rights. The so-called war on terror has manifestly failed, despite the human cost being so devastating.
As has been pointed out by many, the covid-19 global pandemic has profoundly demonstrated that compassion becomes the tie that connects us to one another. Now, more than ever, we must come together and resist those that seek to divide us through violence, intolerance and hate. We cannot let this threat of terrorism take away our hard-fought-for rights and freedoms. We should not let our fundamental values be undermined. Our values are about caring for the whole of society and all our people, not walking by on the other side of the street when they need our help and support, and loving our communities enough to make this a place where nobody is homeless, hungry, held back or left behind. On the international stage, we must stand up for the values we share—justice, human rights and democracy—and work with others to keep people safe by ending conflict and tackling the climate emergency.
I am humbled and inspired by how people continue to organise to protect our communities, and I want to take this opportunity to recognise the enormous contribution that Muslims across Britain make to our country, our communities and our way of life, from which the values of respect and understanding derive. Those values resonate with everyone as we strive to build a better society for us all. In the end, it is only that hope that can lead us out of despair.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I rise to speak about issues relating to amendments 37, 38, 40 and 46. I was seven years old on 11 September 2011, and that awful day passed a long shadow over my childhood. As a young Muslim, I saw the effects of the war on terror at home and abroad. At home, it meant rising Islamophobia, the steady erosion of civil rights, and the installation of cameras on streets near my childhood home. We were told that they were for traffic control, but we soon learned that that was not true. It was an area with a significant Muslim community, and we were being watched. As I got older, I became far too familiar with that. My community were seen not as citizens worthy of equality and respect, but as a threat viewed with hostility and suspicion.
At school and university, I encountered the effects of Prevent. It was said that it was targeting radicalisation, but when it resulted in Muslim university students being reported for reading terrorism-related textbooks as part of their degree, we knew that its effect was to target Muslims and erode the civil liberties of all. If we are worried about free speech on campuses, we need to look at the Prevent strategy.
In the past few years, terrorist atrocities have continued to rock communities across the world, from horrific antisemitic and white supremacist attacks, like that which hit the Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018 and the Christchurch mosque massacre in New Zealand last year, to the far-right extremist who assassinated a Member of this House in 2016 and the devastating attack that cruelly took 23 lives in Manchester in 2017. Everything must be done to combat such awful acts and keep our community safe. We must respect individual liberty and tackle the hate and fear that drives such horrific acts.
I have real concerns that the Bill falls short of those standards. First, it introduces control orders in all but name, which threaten all our civil liberties. Secondly, it removes the statutory deadline to review Prevent. Thirdly, it abandons any attempt to rehabilitate and reform, and instead keeps individuals trapped in a permanent web of surveillance and prisons.
On the first point, concerns and objections to changes to terrorism prevention and investigation measures have been raised by independent reviewers, including the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and civil rights groups such as Liberty and Amnesty International. Liberty says that the change
“reintroduces Control Orders in all but name”.
Control orders have allowed people to be placed under indefinite house arrest, without ever having been convicted of a crime or even having known the evidence against them. The coalition Government rightly abolished them, but this Bill effectively brings them back. Liberty says that the changes pose
“a threat to fundamental pillars of our justice system.”
That should be a concern to us all, so I encourage Government Members to support amendments 37, 40, 46 and 47.
On the second point, the Bill removes the statutory deadline for an independent review of the Prevent programme. To say that the programme needs an independent review is a serious understatement. Again, human rights organisations have consistently raised concerns about it. In 2018, Amnesty International said that it was developed
“without a firm evidence base and rooted in a vague and expansive definition of ‘extremism’”.
Countless examples can be found of the programme’s discriminatory impact on Muslims. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, I want to include that of an eight-year-old boy who was questioned by Prevent officials after his teacher mistook the writing on his T-shirt, as well as the labelling of countless Muslim individuals, charities and mosques as extreme by the Government. The flaws of the programme have reached such heights that the likes of Greenpeace, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Extinction Rebellion were put on Prevent documents alongside proscribed neo-Nazi terror groups. The case for a statutory review of Prevent is clear, so I again urge Conservative Members to support amendments such as amendments 38 and 51.
On the final point, this Bill omits any effort to improve rehabilitation, which is an absolutely key measure to keeping our communities safe and preventing future attacks. Endlessly locking people up and interning them in underfunded, overcrowded, privately-run prisons is no way to protect the public. Instead, it is simply a recipe for creating more problems down the line.
I cannot support the approach of this Bill. We need to tackle terrorism, and we need to do that through prevention, but also by tackling the fear and hate upon which it thrives by bringing communities together and by never letting us be divided on the grounds of race and religion.
Chris Philp
I thank the Members who have contributed to a very thought-provoking debate this afternoon. I would like to reply, if I may, to some of the points that have been raised. I will start with the first question raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), about a lone actor review—new clause 8. I know he has had what I hope was a lengthy and fruitful conversation with the Minister for Security earlier today. He will of course be aware that the Prevent review we have been talking about touches on this, but the MAPPA review will also significantly engage with this topic.
I have been endeavouring to obtain a firm date for publication during the last few minutes. I am afraid the best I can do from this Dispatch Box at the moment is to say that it will be soon—as soon as practical. I hope it will be within the timeframe the hon. Gentleman was asking for, but I am afraid I cannot give him a precise date. However, it is imminent, and we will do it as soon as we possibly can. I believe the MAPPA review will cover many of the issues that the shadow Minister has been raising in relation to the lone actor threat that he and his colleagues have been discussing.
Let me turn to the substantive questions about TPIMs that arose both this afternoon and in Committee. Let me start with what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) termed the business case or the operational case: why are we proposing to lower the burden of proof? The hon. Members for St Helens North and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) raised the same question.
The best answer I can give the House to that question—what is the business case for changing the burden of proof?—is the evidence given to the Bill Committee by Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques, one of the national counter-terrorism policing leads, who had been briefed by the security services prior to giving his evidence. In his evidence, which is available in Hansard, he gave us three reasons why a lower burden of proof—a reasonable suspicion—would be better and would protect the public. The first reason he gave is that, where an individual’s risk profile is rapidly increasing, there may not be time to establish the higher burden of proof before a threat or a risk materialises. Secondly, he said that where somebody is returning from abroad—for example, from Syria—it is very hard to establish an evidential base that, on the balance of probability, someone has been involved in terror-related activity because, by definition, getting evidence from somewhere like Syria it is very hard, if not impossible. The third reason he gave was where sensitive material needs to be relied on: disclosing that material to get to the balance of probability would potentially endanger sources—confidential sources—and it is clearly easier to get to the reasonable suspicion standard without disclosing the material. Those are the three reasons he gave. [Interruption.]
To pre-empt the intervention that I sense the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is brewing, I accept that it is true historically—looking back—that there has not been an occasion on which the security services wanted to give a TPIM but could not do so because of the burden of proof. There is no such historical example, and I freely concede the point. I suspect that was the topic of the intervention. [Interruption.] Sort of. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) said in an intervention, we have to deal in this House not just with what has happened in the past but with what might happen in the future.
We have been clearly advised by Assistant Chief Constable Jacques, and through him by the security services, that this measure is necessary to protect the public. When the assistant chief constable gave evidence on 25 June, I asked him explicitly whether the lower standard of proof would make the public safer. He answered, categorically, that yes it would.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister anticipates my objection, so perhaps I can refer him to what the assistant chief constable said in response to me during the evidence session on 25 June. I asked:
“So where there is a rapidly escalating situation or where there is a need to manage sensitive material, we already have available to us the option of a new variant TPIM without changing the standard of proof.”
and he replied:
“Well, a TPIM is a TPIM. We have the option of a TPIM to manage that case, yes, as it currently stands. MI5 has pointed out that there is no case thus far where the standard of proof has been a blocker.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 23, Q58.]
Chris Philp
As I said, I accept that. There have not been any historical cases where the standard of proof has been a blocker, but we have been categorically advised by the security services, speaking through Assistant Chief Constable Jacques, that it might occur, and that these proposals will make the public safer. He said that categorically, and I do not think that the House could, or should, disregard such clear advice. In relation to Jonathan Hall’s comments, I suspect that he may not have heard the evidence that I read out. He gave evidence to the Committee immediately before Assistant Chief Constable Jacques. His evidence was new to the House and to Parliament, and we did not have it on Second Reading. We do have it now, however, and we should have careful regard to it.
A number of Members raised questions about civil liberties, and not wishing to intrude on an individual’s freedom, and I will directly address those points. I will do so with reference to the original Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. By lowering the burden of proof, we are changing only one of five limbs. The other four limbs remain exactly as they are, and one of those, laid out in section 3 of that Act, states that the Secretary of State must reasonably consider whether the TPIM is “necessary”—I use that word carefully—for purposes connected with protecting members of the public. Subsection (4), condition D, states that the Secretary of State must consider whether a TPIM is
“necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity,”
That test of necessity goes far beyond the reasonable suspicion referred to in the first limb. The requirement for necessity is unchanged.
The hon. Member for St Albans said that this measure could be introduced on a Minister’s whim, and that a Minister could impose a TPIM with the sweep of a pen. I say to her gently, however, that that is not the case and there are judicial safeguards in the 2011 Act. For example, section 6 of that Act states that when a TPIM notice is given, the Secretary of State must go to the court and make an application, and the court has to verify or validate that the TPIM is reasonable, and certify that it is not “obviously flawed”. There is judicial certification.
Section 16 of the 2011 Act provides for a right to appeal. If the subject of a TPIM feels that they have been unfairly treated, or that the TPIM is unjustified, they can apply to the court in a process akin to a judicial review, and apply to have it overturned. There are judicial safeguards to protect individuals from unreasonable actions by the Government.
In the many years that TPIMs have been in operation since 2011, and in the six years when control orders were in place from 2005, the numbers used have been small. There were never more than about 15 to 20 control orders in force at any one time, and we heard evidence that as of today only six TPIMs are in force. That is a very small number, as they are used only in exceptional circumstances. When I asked Jonathan Hall whether he believed that any Government, including the previous Labour Government or the more recent Conservative Government, had ever abused the power provided by TPIMs or control orders, he answered that no, he was not aware of any such abuse. I would add that a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, has expressed support for the measures in this Bill.
Let me turn to the issue of time and how extendable TPIMs are. They currently expire after two years. We propose to make them extendable in one-year increments, as were the old control orders passed by the then Labour Government and indeed supported by some Members in this House this afternoon. We heard evidence from Jonathan Hall that there was risk where a TPIM ended after two years, as there could be a gap. He knew of two real cases where that occurred, with a gap of one year in one case and a gap of 16 months in the other before a new TPIM could be obtained. That is because we have to get fresh evidence; we cannot rely on the old evidence and we have to wait for somebody to do something wrong again to give us the grounds to renew the TPIM. Max Hill, when he was independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2017, said that some terrorists were “biding time” waiting for the TPIM to simply time out.
In fairness to the last Labour Government, even though the previous control orders could be extended year by year, in practice most of them were not: 30 of them were for less than two years; eight were for between two and three years; four were for between three and four years; and only three extended for between four and five years. Again, the subject can apply for judicial review if they think the TPIM extension is unfair, so a judicial protection is in place.
I have two quick final points to make. In terms of prosecution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked about, there is a duty under section 10 of the 2011 Act that requires the Secretary of State to seek prosecution where appropriate. On Prevent, let me say that the statutory obligation to carry out the Prevent review remains. There have been some delays, because the independent reviewer had to be replaced and then we had the coronavirus pandemic. Our commitment to do it remains in statute. Obviously, specifying a date caused a problem before, and we do not want to repeat that mistake. We hope and expect that this will be done by August of next year, but we feel that, given the experience of the recent past, putting that date in the Bill would simply be setting a bear trap. So I hope that I have laid out the case for resisting these amendments.
Conor McGinn
In the brief time available, I wish, first, to thank the Minister for addressing some of the concerns we have raised, not just today on Report, but through a thorough examination of the Bill in Committee. Although Labour Members wholeheartedly support robust action to keep our country and our citizens safe, and to tackle terrorism and its causes, it is the duty of any responsible Opposition to examine fully the Government’s proposals. I feel that we have done that, with the assistance of Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat Members, those from other parties in the House, and colleagues on the Back Benches.
The Minister and the Government should listen carefully to the very personal testimony given by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Although I might not have agreed with her on every crossed t or dotted i, or even on whole words or sentences on occasion, she does speak with the voice of years of experience in this House and a commitment to these issues. She also, like Members who spoke from these Benches, speaks authoritatively and with great passion on behalf of the constituencies and communities she represents. The Government should listen to them, which was why I made the points I did about the importance of not only getting this Prevent review right but getting on with it, to give the clarity and confidence needed, and to address some of the challenges and controversies associated with it.
I was hoping that we might receive a commitment from the Government to publish their MAPPA— multi-agency public protection arrangements—review before we got to consideration in the House of Lords, because it is important, given the removal of the statutory deadline for Prevent and given that the Opposition have proposed a review on lone actors, to have some timeframe on that. I appreciate and understand that the Minister has made valiant efforts to do that, but I regret that it has not been forthcoming to date. I hope that in considering the request for a review on lone actors, the Government understand that we do so in a constructive spirit.
Chris Philp
The Lord Chancellor has appeared, as if by magic, behind the Speaker’s Chair and has indicated to me by eloquent gesticulation that the MAPPA review will indeed be published before the consideration of the Bill in the other place.
Conor McGinn
I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for that commitment. The robust exchanges we have had have been in the context and spirit of working constructively on a Bill of huge importance, which is concerned with keeping our country and its citizens safe. Our proposals for that review are in keeping with that view. We await to see what the MAPPA review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation comes forward with. Colleagues in the other place will no doubt wish to scrutinise that. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4
Serious terrorism sentence for adults aged under 21: England and Wales
Amendment proposed: 30, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) The pre-sentence report must —
(a) take account of the offender’s age;
(b) consider whether options other than a serious terrorism sentence might be more effective at—
(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or
(ii) rehabilitating the offender.
(8) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (7) and consider whether they constitute exceptional circumstances under subsection (2).”.—(Alex Cunningham.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I take this opportunity to thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their careful scrutiny of the Bill thus far? I am very grateful to everyone who contributed to the debate on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Report. I would especially like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), whose impassioned speech regarding her friend Louise, who was caught up in the horrors of the 7/7 bombings 15 years ago this month, reminded us of the importance of the work we are doing here. I am particularly grateful for the co-operative and constructive spirit in which these debates have taken place, and for the broad support received for the Bill so far. That, I think, is testament to the fact that Members recognise overall the intent and purpose of the legislation, which are to protect the public and to keep our country safe. Those are the first and foremost duties of any Government.
There have been some differing opinions on certain measures in the Bill. They have enriched the debate and deepened our understanding of not just the intention behind the measures, but current practice. We have heard questions about the changes we are making to terrorism prevention and investigation measure notices—or TPIMs, as we know them. Let me say to the House that prosecution, or deportation in the case of foreign nationals, will always be our preference for dealing with terrorists, but there will continue to be a small number of cases where, despite the best efforts of the police and security services, that will not be possible. In those circumstances, TPIMs remain a vital risk management tool. A lower standard of proof will allow for TPIMs to be considered for use in a wider variety of cases and will better protect the covert sources and methods that are vital to the investigation of terrorist threat.
The Home Secretary considers very carefully the intelligence held by our security services, as well as consulting the police on the case for prosecution, before deciding whether a TPIM is necessary and proportionate. The Government have no desire to keep individuals on a TPIM any longer than is necessary and proportionate to protect the public. Removing the two-year time limit for a TPIM ensures that where subjects pose an enduring risk, we will be better placed to restrict and prevent their involvement in terrorism-related activity for as long as is necessary.
Further safeguards will remain in place. The courts will be able to consider permission hearings on whether the decision to impose a TPIM was obviously flawed and prevent the Home Secretary from doing so where that is the case. Subjects will continue to have a right to appeal any decision to extend the TPIM or vary any of its measures. The quarterly TPIM review group meetings will continue to provide regular oversight of every TPIM, including reviewing its ongoing necessity, whether prosecution is a possibility, and, indeed, the exit strategy for the subject of the measure.
Some concerns have been expressed about the removal of the statutory deadline for completing the independent review of Prevent. I must emphasise that the commitment to completing that important review continues and will remain in statute. We want the review into our strategy for safeguarding those vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism to be completed as soon as possible, but we also wanted to run a full and open competition to appoint a new reviewer and to attract as broad a range of applicants as possible. Designing and running that process takes time, and I want to ensure that the new reviewer has an opportunity to decide how best to run the next phase of the review and has enough time to analyse the evidence, develop robust recommendations and, critically, can engage as openly, fully and widely as possible with communities, civil society and others. That will all take time if it is to be done properly, and we cannot fully predict whether events might have a further impact on the timings of that review, particularly in the context of the ongoing covid-19 pandemic, which, frankly, could present further practical challenges to how it could be conducted over the coming months. We should therefore avoid the risk of removing the reviewer’s ability to respond to and mitigate those events both foreseeable and unforeseeable.
For those reasons, while I fully understand the desire to put a new deadline in the Bill, there would, in my judgment, be a significant risk in doing so. It could have the unintended consequence of reducing the impact of this vital review, which I know Members across the House do not wish to do. We should not confuse our desire to give the reviewer the flexibility and time they will need with any question about a lack of commitment to it. I say again to the House that we want it to be completed along with a Government response as quickly as possible, and certainly no later than August of next year.
There has been much debate and discussion about the Bill’s provisions relating to polygraph testing, and I recall a lot of interest in the media when we announced the Bill and its details. I would like to be clear about what these measures seek to achieve and what they do not do. First, on their efficacy, the Committee heard compelling and detailed evidence from Professor Grubin, a leading expert in this field, who has attested to their reliability and their value. They are well established in this country already, having been used thousands of times on sex offenders, and they have been independently evaluated. Secondly, on their purpose, they are an additional risk management tool that can allow probation officers to test compliance with other licence conditions. They are not there to catch offenders out, and the results will most certainly not be used in criminal proceedings against the offender. We have already shown our intention to introduce polygraph testing elsewhere for use with domestic abusers, so we are not taking a novel approach for terrorist offenders. It is another way in which we can help to protect the public.
Finally on this issue, we recognise that they are currently used only in England and Wales, which is why the polygraph provisions relating to terrorist offenders on licence will not come into effect automatically. We will continue to work with Ministers in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to provide advice and support to put the necessary infrastructure in place before polygraph testing can be conducted there. I am grateful for the continued co-operation of those devolved Administrations. I recognise the complexity and sensitivities of legislating across three jurisdictions’ sentencing frameworks. Right hon. and hon. Members have indeed reminded us of the need to tread carefully, and we do so. I would like to give reassurance that the Government are committed to ensuring that the measures in the Bill can work effectively throughout our United Kingdom, but I do not apologise for the determination, because we have to ensure our citizens are safe from terrorist offending whether committed in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland
I will pause at this moment to thank all those members of the Bill team who have worked so hard to bring the Bill to this stage. Most notably, I am profoundly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) for his stewardship both on Report and in Committee. Indeed I thank all the team both in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office—some of whom are in the Box today—for working collaboratively together. They have served Ministers and indeed the House diligently when it comes to the need to marshal all the clauses in a way that could withstand the most appropriate and thorough scrutiny. I am grateful to them, and I am happy to put it put that on the record here rather than via a point of order, which I think I did on a previous occasion when you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that, too.
The United Kingdom has one of the strongest counter-terrorism systems in the world, but we continue to face a terrorist threat in this country that is complex, and that is diverse and rapidly changing. The House has rightly noted the growing threat that we face from right- wing extremists. Since 2017 we have foiled 25 terrorist plots, including eight plots planned by right-wing extremists, but we are not complacent. We have already established a joint extremism unit to strengthen the partnership of work across the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Of course, there is much more to do, and there will regrettably always be unfinished business.
We are on track to recruit an additional 20,000 police officers to boost frontline capability. That is why we have increased the budget for counter-terrorism policing by £90 million this year, compared with last, taking the overall CT police funding to over £900 million, and we are developing an ambitious programme to strengthen joint working between our police and our security services, which will leave terrorists with no place to hide.
As I have said on many occasions and will continue to say, public protection is our first duty. The comprehensive package of measures introduced in the Bill, on top of the investment that we are making and the programme we are putting in place, demonstrates, I firmly believe, our deep and enduring commitment to that duty.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
This is an important Bill, which will have a significant impact on many aspects of the criminal justice system for many years to come. I wish to thank colleagues who contributed to the robust debates that we have had in Committee and on Report. In particular, I thank my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who has made characteristically thoughtful contributions throughout the Bill’s passage. I thank also my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), for his characteristic robust approach, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who has been a pleasure to work with for the first time on the Front Bench. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for the joint working that we were able to do in opposition.
As I said on Second Reading, the Opposition fully accept that those who have committed serious terrorist offences should serve a sentence that fully represents the gravity of their actions. First and foremost, our approach has been an overarching commitment to keep the British public safe and to ensure that horrific terrorist attacks such as the ones at Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham cannot be repeated. The Opposition also accept that when those who have committed the most serious terrorist offences are released, it is only right that, even if they are really sorry, they are subject to stringent licensing conditions that would allow their close supervision in the community.
We accept that the broad thrust of the Bill is necessary and proportionate. It would be a mistake to say, though, that the Bill is flawless, or that its provisions on their own can protect the public from the ever-present threat of radicalisation and serious terrorist atrocities. One of the greatest concerns that we have had, as an Opposition, since the emergence of the Bill is that the balance between the importance of punishment and the necessity to rehabilitate offenders has not been quite struck. At this stage, it is important to make one point perfectly clear: even offenders convicted of the most serious terrorist offences, those who are subject to extended sentences under the Bill, will at some point be released back into society. That is the reality that, wherever we sit in this House, we must accept. Although, as I have already pointed out, it is only right that the most serious terrorists serve extended sentences of up to 14 years, the Opposition also believe that we have a moral duty to ensure that offenders leave prison less dangerous and less willing to harm the fabric of our society than when they went in.
Failing to believe and invest in deradicalisation strategies not only fails society but actively puts members of society at increased risk. Although it is sadly true that most serious terrorist offenders will prove to be either unwilling or unable to reform, it is our duty to believe in hope over despair. It is simply not good enough to lock terrorists away for longer, put them out of our minds and hope for the best. As we have seen from the devastating attacks at Streatham and Fishmongers’ Hall, this approach does not work.
The Government cannot simply give up on rehabilitation, nor the ability of former offenders to reform, which is why it is so disappointing that so little in the Bill will do anything to strip terrorists of their hateful ideologies or to encourage them to rejoin society as reformed individuals. It is abundantly clear that we need a serious and comprehensive strategy on deradicalisation in prison, and the Opposition will hold the Government to account on that in the months and years to come.
That brings me to another issue that the Opposition have sought to recognise during the passage of the Bill: the importance of probation. We cannot begin to tackle terrorism without first recognising the important role played by the probation services. It is worth remembering that the role of probation is not just to monitor risk but to provide support to those who have been released from prison so that they are less likely to reoffend and can play an active role in society.
The provisions of this important Bill will mean that more people will serve longer behind bars, followed by hugely increased licence periods in the community. With that in mind, it is more important than ever for our probation services to be fully functioning and effective, yet we know that our probation services are already hopelessly overstretched and overworked.
In particular, Labour is concerned that the provisions of the Bill will place a huge burden on specialised probation officers, who are already very thin on the ground and hold very high terror-related caseloads. Research shows us that more time spent with offenders is essential to the carrying out of proper risk assessments, but that simply will not be possible with vastly increased workloads. The Government cannot simply increase the responsibilities placed on probation officers, increase their workload and consider the matter closed. It is vital that probation officers are given the resources that they need to do their job; the safety of the public depends on it. The Opposition will hold the Government to account if they fail to meet their obligations to the probation services.
Another concern that was stressed throughout Committee and on Report is the importance of recognising the difference between young offenders and adult offenders. Young offenders and adult offenders are inherently different: they think differently and make decisions in different ways but, most importantly, young offenders are much more capable of reform than older adults. As Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, rightly pointed out during his analysis of the Bill:
“The requirement of a minimum mandatory sentence for all adult offenders, however young,”
raises the question of
“an adult of 18 years and one month”
being
“any more mature than a child of 17 years and 11 months”.
The Opposition recognise that there are significant differences between adults over 21, those who are between 19 and 21, and those who are under 18. Members of each of those groups are at very different stages of their lives, and reviews, including my own, have recognised the need for different criminal justice approaches to different age groups. In order properly to reflect the difference between young offenders and adult offenders, the Opposition tabled an amendment that would require a pre-sentence report to be carried out that would take into consideration the age of the offender and whether options other than a serious terrorist offence might be more effective. It is a shame that the Government did not accept that amendment, but I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the Opposition’s concerns in the months and years ahead.
Let me finish where I started on Second Reading, first in paying tribute to a dear friend, James Adams, who was killed in the 7/7 bombings, but also in paying tribute to Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, who lost their lives in the attack on Fishmongers’ Hall. Both Jack and Saskia believed passionately that there can be a glimmer of light in even the darkest and most hardened of hearts. We on the Labour Benches share that optimism. Although it is only right that those who have committed the most heinous of crimes are subjected to extended sentences, we cannot give up hope of rehabilitation. If even the smallest chance of redemption exists, we owe it to the victims of Fishmongers’ Hall to try.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Opposition have sought to work constructively with the Government to ensure that the courts have the powers they need to meet the continual threat of terrorism and keep terrorists off the streets, and I assure the Secretary of State that I will continue to work constructively with him over the months and years ahead. This Bill goes some way to doing that, and therefore we will support it on Third Reading.
Sir Robert Neill
This is a very important Bill. The Lord Chancellor and his ministerial team are to be congratulated on delivering it. It is the second major piece of legislation that the Lord Chancellor’s Department has delivered in very different fields, if we take into account the divorce reform Bill. It deals with the most profound matter. Many of my constituents commute daily to London—or they would, under normal circumstances—and the real threat and risk of terrorism there and in our great cities is a daily matter for them. Getting this right is vital for my constituents and for the country as a whole.
That requires a balance—a balance between security, and just and due process and the liberty of the individual. I do not doubt that it was the Lord Chancellor’s overriding intention to get that right. I believe he has succeeded. There are one or two areas, which I have referred to, where perhaps we will want to see how it works in practice, but we ought to give the Bill a fair wind.
I know that the Lord Chancellor will take on board the observations of the shadow Lord Chancellor and the Justice Committee about the importance of the work done by the probation service and the Prison Service in these areas and ensure that they are not only properly supported but resourced. In particular, we must ensure not only that offenders are, where necessary, properly contained in prison and then, where possible, rehabilitated afterwards, but that those who cannot be rehabilitated are not able to corrupt and suck into their web other, more vulnerable prisoners. Giving the Prison Service resource to do that is also an important part of protection. I support the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
I will not speak for long, because I have already spoken at length this afternoon about issues of concern to the Scottish National party and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), on his hard work to pilot the Bill through its stages so far, and on having an open-door policy to my concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) about matters pertaining to sentencing in Scotland.
I also thank the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for St Helens North (Conor McGinn); I enjoyed working with them on the Bill Committee, and it is always my pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). We have a good working relationship, and I would like that to continue on other Bills as this Parliament goes on.
As I said earlier, terrorism is clearly reserved. The position of the Scottish National party is clear: we want to work hard with the UK Government to make sure that all communities in these islands are protected from the horrendous consequences of terrorism, but sentencing is devolved, and it is important that that is respected. I am grateful to Ministers for taking on board the concerns that I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian raised about the order for lifelong restriction, and for bringing forward amendments to deal with those concerns. I am also grateful that there are ongoing discussions about the rather more difficult issue of polygraphs. In Scotland, we do not use them at present. My friend and colleague Humza Yousaf, the Justice Secretary, is in correspondence about that matter.
I add my own plea that we do not forget about the importance of rehabilitation and deradicalisation. There is not really anything about those things in the Bill. As I said earlier this afternoon, it is particularly important, when looking at children and younger offenders, that we devote thought and time to deradicalisation.
I have already made clear the Scottish National party’s concerns about the lack of a clear operational case for the changes being made in relation to TPIMs, and I suspect there will be more debate about that in the other place. That is not just the view of the SNP; the concern is shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I will leave it at that for now, but we will no doubt be revisiting matters if any amendments come back from the Lords.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I rise only briefly to state my strong support for the Bill. I should declare that prior to my election, I was the magistrate member of the Sentencing Council and a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Accordingly, I was honoured to be a member of the Public Bill Committee for this legislation.
As we have heard several times during the debates on the Bill, the overarching responsibility of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and one of the five set out purposes of sentencing is to protect the public, and that is rightly the priority of the Bill. Terrorist attacks cause carnage, murdering indiscriminately and injuring wantonly. The Bill sends a very powerful message to those who seek to bring terror to the lives of innocent people. It demonstrates the contempt in which we hold those who seek to kill and maim to further their warped ideologies. A minimum sentence of 14 years to be spent entirely in custody is a clear signal that if someone commits a serious offence linked to terrorism, they can expect to spend a hefty proportion of their life locked up, and rightly so.
I, too, am a firm believer in rehabilitation, and the Prison Service has worked incredibly hard to devise and implement deradicalisation programmes, but I think most people would acknowledge that there is considerable scope for further improvement. Several times during the Committee’s evidence sessions, we were told that the reoffending rate of terrorists is low—perhaps just 3% —somehow implying that we therefore do not need such lengthy sentences as proposed in the Bill, but that surely misses the point. Even one terrorist reoffending is one too many, because even one terrorist attack can kill hundreds of people. In cases of terrorism, we cannot take risks.
The Bill also sends a strong message to the public that this Government are absolutely committed to protecting lives and minimising the chance of terrorist attacks taking place. The changes to TPIMs reflect the needs of the Security Service to have every tool to keep us safe. When Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques, the deputy senior national co-ordinator in the UK’s counter-terrorism policing, gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, he stated:
“Protecting the public is our No. 1 priority and sometimes that means we have to intervene regardless of evidence, because the risks to the public are so great.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 26, Q69.]
Our priority must be to support our Security Service and police in the heroic work they do day in, day out, often at considerable danger to themselves in their constant quest to thwart would-be terrorists from wreaking their havoc. We owe it to them to give them what they need to keep us safe.
Finally, it is vitally important that the courts take immediate note if and when the Bill is passed. I hope that sentencing guidelines can be introduced quickly to reflect the clear will of all sides of Parliament to ensure that dangerous terrorist offenders spend more time in prison.
Robert Buckland
On that point, my hon. Friend will be assured to know that the Sentencing Council is putting work in train in any event to revise the terrorism guidelines and this Bill, should it become law, will no doubt form part of its work.
Rob Butler
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for reassuring me of that. I know from having served on the Sentencing Council that its members will diligently proceed with their efforts. That work will surely reflect, as I was saying, the clear will of Parliament to ensure that dangerous terrorist offenders spend more time in prison, to give greater opportunity for rehabilitation, to reflect the seriousness of their crime and, most importantly, to protect the British people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say briefly that there are many MPs in this House who have been affected by terrorism? When I was talking to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) earlier, we were relating the stories of her friend and others. This Bill before us tonight cements and strengthens our position and offers us protection. We as MPs in Northern Ireland have felt the brunt of terrorism more than most. We know about it personally—I know about it. I often think of those whom I know who have given their lives. I think of my cousin Kenneth Smyth and his friend Daniel McCormick who were both murdered on 10 December 1971. I think of the four UDR men murdered at Ballydugan: young John Birch, Steven Smart—[Interruption.]
Robert Buckland
I think it would be the right thing to do to allow our hon. Friend to compose himself for a moment as he remembers and shares with the House the horror of the effects of terrorism. We remain indebted to him and are always grateful to him for sharing his observations and we entirely understand how he must feel when he is reliving those moments.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State very much for intervening. I do recall John Birch, Steven Smart, Michael Adams and Lance Corporal Bradley. I often think of the families of those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and of those who were injured. We owe so much to those families. Every MP in this House has a responsibility to keep their constituents safe, as others have said, which we all adhere to and I thank them for that. Today, our Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who, I have to say, I am very impressed by—I mean that honestly—and also the Secretary of State have come in here and ensured that the protection of all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been cemented in legislation, and I thank them for that. We welcome the Government’s commitment and we thank all in the Committee for their work and the Clerks for their administration to deliver the Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to Lords amendments to the Business and Planning Bill. I am going slowly here to allow a natural changeover of personnel at a 2 metre distance. I am grateful to hon. Members for their co-operation.
Business and Planning Bill
Tuesday 21st July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons 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-R-I(Corrected-II) Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2020)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 42.
Christopher Pincher
This Bill is an essential part of the Government’s response to the effects of covid-19 and the restrictions that have been keeping people safe. We know that these restrictions have come at a considerable cost to our economy and to people’s lives. We all have constituents who are desperate to get back to work— desperate to get back to their normal lives. This Bill will help to make that happen. This Bill will help the country get back on its feet.
The amendments that we are considering this evening do not disrupt the thrust of the Bill as it left this House. In fact, they improve it. It is worth remembering that when this Bill was last in this House we debated it over one afternoon—unusually fast, as several hon. and right hon. Members have said—to ensure that it would come into force before the summer recess and give the greatest possible benefit to the country. The Bill has received more extensive consideration in the other place, and I hope that we can agree the amendments.
I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their constructive engagement with the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and his colleagues in the Opposition for their collaboration. Members’ thoughtfulness and involvement have been a great help in improving this legislation, and I am pleased with the result of our deliberations. I should also like to recognise parliamentary counsel, the legal advisers and staff of the other place and of this House for marshalling this Bill through all its stages.
I shall briefly summarise the amendments that have been made in the other place. First, we have improved the pavement licensing measures in several ways. We have ensured that authorities must have regard to the needs of disabled people when considering whether to grant a pavement licence, and we have ensured that non-smoking areas will be provided by businesses that are granted pavement licences. We have also ensured that local authorities can delegate decisions about pavement licences to sub-committees or to officials, and that regulations issued by Government will be laid before Parliament. Those amendments are in keeping with the policy intention of the pavement licence provisions and improve them. I therefore hope that the House will support the amendments.
Secondly, we have amended the provisions about off-sales of alcohol to combat antisocial behaviour. I am especially grateful to hon. Members for their involvement in this issue—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan); my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who brought to bear her considerable experience as the leader of a London council; and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who spoke eloquently when we last debated the matter in this House. I believe that collectively, they have improved the Bill. The Bill now limits off-sales to 11 pm at the latest, and any new permissions will not allow the sale of alcohol for consumption in outdoor areas of the premises that are already restricted by the premises licence. Making off-sales of alcohol easier will help the hospitality industry to recover more quickly, but in a way that does not encourage antisocial behaviour.
Thirdly, we have increased the extension of planning permission by one month. This is a modest extension, but it will provide further certainty and reassurance to developers and local authorities that planning permissions will not lapse unnecessarily as a result of the pandemic. Fourthly, in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, any extension to the provisions can be made only when it is
“necessary or appropriate for a purpose linked to the coronavirus pandemic.”
That is an important clarification.
Finally, the Bill now amends section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 so that the Government can make regulations to enable specific authorities to conduct their meetings remotely. These authorities were omitted from the Coronavirus Act because of the speed with which that legislation was passed, and now is the appropriate time to include them. I hope the House will agree these Lords amendments.
I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members agree that businesses throughout our country need the benefit of these provisions this summer. As someone once put it, we need to help to fix the economy while the sun is shining. If we do not pass this Bill today, it will not take effect until the autumn, and the country will lose out on the valuable provisions over the summer months. The Bill has been much improved and scrutinised in the other place, and it is an example of how Parliament can work quickly and effectively in the national interest and set the United Kingdom on a path to recovery. I therefore trust that the House will support all the Lords amendments.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I rise to support Lords amendment 1 and the other Lords amendments that have been sent back to us from the other place. This is an important Bill, as the Minister said—particularly so for the hospitality industry. The Minister made reference to the speed with which it went through this place, and I agree that it has benefited from consideration in the Lords. I join him in thanking all the people who have worked on the Bill, including the civil servants who worked on it at speed to ensure that it can help the hospitality industry and other industries in this time of crisis.
I will briefly refer to some of the changes made by their lordships. I agree with the Minister that limiting off-sales to 11 pm is an important change. I pay tribute to Government Members for their work on this issue, and I pay particular tribute to the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). It is hard to say no to her, but she made a very important and correct case. Although it applies particularly to her constituency, it also applies elsewhere, and I understand why she made that case. Their lordships accepted it, and we should too.
The Minister is right to draw attention to the important issue of pavement licences and disability, which needs to be taken into consideration when local councils make decisions. The needs of the hospitality industry are clearly very important, but we cannot ignore the needs of disabled people in our country.
The other notable innovation of the Bill relates to smoke-free areas outside when additional licences are granted. That important change will enable people to enjoy the outside space—obviously, they are not able to take advantage of inside space in the old way—with the guarantee of a smoke-free environment. The Minister made reference to a number of other changes, which we support.
The one other point that I will make—I think the Minister and his colleagues will agree with this—is that although this is a necessary set of changes for the hospitality industry, it is not sufficient. We continue to have deep concerns about what we see as the premature ending of the furlough for that industry and other sectors that are in difficulty. With that said, I urge the House to support these Lords amendments.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I rise to support these amendments. On Second Reading, I called for a restriction on alcohol off-sales to 11 pm, so I am delighted that that amendment has been accepted. We need to strike the right balance between getting our economy up and running and the interests of residents, who in certain parts of London have been subject to a lot of anti-social behaviour—in particular, in Notting Hill in my constituency. These amendments strike the right balance, and I commend them to the House.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I can only echo what the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said about anti-social behaviour, which has been an absolute plague on communities across London and, I am sure, elsewhere. In my community in Richmond Park, we have had behaviour the like of which we have not seen before. It has been an enormous burden for local people.
I welcome the Lords amendments. I am slightly disappointed that the amendment that my colleague Lord Paddick put forward about serving alcohol in open glass containers was not adopted, because that would have had a significant positive impact on the situation that many people are experiencing.
To add to what I said on Second Reading, I urge the Government to think again about the number of police officers in London. We in Richmond are certainly finding that, because police officers are always focused on violence reduction and that is a particular issue for some of the inner London boroughs, we are missing out on the increase that we need for neighbourhood policing in places such as Richmond, which would do much more to keep a lid on some of the antisocial behaviour we are seeing. We have heard about the extra officers that are coming, and I really hope that they are coming very soon, because we would like to see them in Richmond.
I echo what the Minister said about the passage of this Bill, its speed and the constructive nature in which everyone has engaged with it. This is going to be a great piece of legislation, and I support the amendments.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to put on record how proud I am of the entrepreneurs in Hackney who have contributed so much to developing our night-time economy—often quite young people who have come up with interesting ideas about how to develop their premises and contribute to our economy. However, it does cost Hackney Council £1.5 million a year in extra cleaning to manage the night-time economy that we have fostered. In its original form, the Bill would have contributed to some of the behaviour we have seen in recent weeks and months in my borough. I never like to stand up here and say bad things about the constituency I represent, but we have seen some appalling behaviour—I will not repeat what I said last time.
The Minister talked about the thoughtfulness and involvement of hon. Members that has greatly improved the Bill. I say to the Government that, even in a pandemic, a little more time could create even better legislation. Given that we were in the pandemic and businesses were thinking about this much earlier, a little more time—a week, even—would have been better than the three days we originally had to consider the Bill. We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble, because there was agreement that we needed to support the hospitality industry, but there is also agreement across the House today—happily, we have seen some important changes—that we should support the residents, who will suffer if we do not get the balance right. In fact, the businesses in my area that have been there for a long time, living in most cases pretty harmoniously with residents, want to have that long-term relationship, so they were not all in favour of the original proposals. That could have been ameliorated if hon. Members had been involved at an earlier stage.
I particularly welcome and pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place on the limit on off-sales to 11 pm—I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who was the first to raise that issue in this House—and the limits on extensions to that. Off-sales cannot be a permanent free-for-all. Of course, if a local area decides that it works, it is at liberty to grant a licence in a particular area or a particular part of that area, but this freedom in licensing must not continue just because we have had it during a pandemic—it has to be down to local authorities that know their area, know their residents and know and support their businesses. The decision should never be taken away and made subject to a blanket permission from central Government. I welcome the intervention from their Lordships and I thank the Minister for accepting the amendments, so that we can move quickly on to support our businesses while ameliorating the impact on our residents.
Christopher Pincher
I do not propose to detain the House any longer than simply to say thank you to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their commitment to the Bill and their contributions to it. I wish it safe and swift passage to Royal Assent.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 42 agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Secretary Matt Hancock relating to Public Health; the Motion in the name of Secretary Dominic Raab relating to Sanctions; and the Motion in the name of Christopher Pincher relating to Town and Country Planning.—(David Duguid.)
Business Without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 684), dated 3 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 685), dated 3 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 719), dated 9 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.
Sanctions
That the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 680), dated 5 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
Misuse of Nitrous Oxide
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
We have all seen the tell-tale bullet- shaped silver canisters and their balloon companions littering our beaches and parks this summer. On Saturday morning, I saw yet another little pile of littered canisters at every 10 paces or so along Whitstable beach in my constituency.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her powerful campaign on this issue. As a former councillor in Camden, I am aware of the pressures on councils during this pandemic. Is she aware of the significant cost to councils of removing these discarded containers, and will she raise that in her speech?
Rosie Duffield
Yes, I am going to mention that. I know that my council has had so many extra rubbish collections during covid due to people gathering on beaches, which is a significant problem. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.
Many people pass by these canisters without knowing what they are. Some will have picked them up, examined them and speculated imaginatively about their use. Among young people, the use of nitrous oxide is endemic. Every single sixth-former and university or college student in Britain will know what those silver canisters are. Nitrous oxide—also known as laughing gas, NOS, NOx, whippits, balloons or chargers—is a psychoactive drug covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. It can be taken legally, but it cannot by law be sold or given away to others for the purpose of inhalation in a recreational capacity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Many of us are aware of this issue, and I thank her for bringing it forward. The media has been full of stories, and so-called laughing gas is not a laughing matter. Does she agree that, while it is necessary in the medical field and must continue to be available in that field, we need to educate our young people about the dangers attached to its use outside the medical field?
Rosie Duffield
It is a massive honour to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman—I have arrived! A recent report by the British Compressed Gases Association—something I never thought I would say in this Chamber—said that continued medical use will be easy, as it always has been, if we impose a restriction on sales to individuals. I have borne that in mind when doing my research, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that.
The canisters are manufactured as charger bulbs for use in catering, to whip cream, among other things, and we just heard about their medical use. If someone wants to buy cream chargers, there are currently no age restrictions. A quick look online this morning showed me that I could have 24 canisters delivered to my office tomorrow for just £9.19. Teenagers tell me that boxes sell for as little as £5 locally, or I could just walk into one of the 25% of corner shops estimated to sell these chargers. If I bought some canisters for the purpose of indulging in a quick lockdown high, I would not have broken the law. Despite a few websites having small print telling me that the nitrous oxide they were selling was for professional purposes only, no one would have asked me for ID or for the items to be sent to a registered catering, medical or dental premises. That is clearly the problem here—it is far too easy to purchase nitrous oxide for use as a recreational drug, and every day up and down the country, thousands of young people are doing just that.
It is clear to me and to many of the experts I have spoken to that recreational use has become much more prevalent during lockdown. This is not in any way meant as an attack on teenagers or young people. They are not the villains of the piece. The toll on the mental wellbeing of young people forced to be apart from their friends has been really difficult. Let us be honest: every generation has experimented with and will continue to use recreational drugs and alcohol of some kind. This rise in the use of nitrous oxide is partially caused by covid-19-related shortages of other recreational drugs, which has led to a rise in their prices and a decline in their purity. Big cylinders of nitrous oxide have been stolen from hospitals and, since they have reopened, from coffee shops. That is quite unlikely to be the work of a few bored teenagers on the beach. Users, and therefore suppliers, have looked elsewhere, often to nitrous oxide, which, when combined with other quasi-legal highs, can replicate some of the effects of harder illegal substances.
Of course, there was already an uphill trend in the use of nitrous oxide. The 2018-19 national drugs survey suggested that nearly 9% of those aged 16 to 24 had tried the drug, compared with 6% five years earlier, and that for one in 25 users it had caused some kind of accident—staggering into traffic, falling off balconies or drowning in swimming pools, to name but a few. It is now second in use only to cannabis.
From consulting experts from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, including its chief scientist, Professor Gino Martini, it is clear that use of nitrous oxide carries significant health risks. It can cause hallucinations and nausea, deep vein thrombosis and skin hyperpigmentation. Some people have been left with spinal cord damage and paralysis. For young people, the vitamin B12 deficiency that can be caused can also affect brain development and rewiring of the prefrontal cortex.
Even after the initial high and the immediate consequences of that high, nitrous oxide can have long-term effects. Users report lasting numbness on their face, around their mouths and in their hands and feet, caused by often irreversible nerve damage. Ambulance workers have recently expressed concern about the number of call-outs they are attending in recent months linked to the drug.
It is clear that there is currently not enough education and outreach being done to draw people’s attention to the early signs of irreversible nerve damage—tingling in their tongue and fingers, for example. I therefore call on the Government to further support local services in disseminating harm reduction and educational materials on nitrous oxide. The Royal College of Nursing has said that there is a lack of understanding about the health consequences: well, today is the day that the Government can begin to change that. I want this debate to be the start of a national conversation on the use of nitrous oxide and the harms that it can possibly cause.
Driving while on drugs is an offence, obviously, and police forces can test for impairment and prosecute accordingly. Inhaling nitrous oxide and then driving is putting oneself, other road users and pedestrians at great risk.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a really powerful speech. I cannot help noticing that in Wycombe we see piles of these canisters at the roadside. As a motorcyclist, I have often been conscious when looking at little steel rollers, in effect, that they could cause a major fatal accident on a bicycle or a motorcycle, or possibly in a car. I really appreciate the opportunity to put that on the record, because I hope that the Government will think about some of the wider harms that users might cause.
Rosie Duffield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Kent police’s road policing unit has recently made a video highlighting the dangers. That is one of the things that they are really concerned about.
The data on those driving under the influence of nitrous oxide in fatal accidents is unclear, but anecdotally enforcement officers up and down the country will say that it is a big problem. Whitstable residents report to me that night after night young people are driving dangerously around the town. It is becoming a blight on our area and putting a strain on our excellent local police services. Come to Canterbury or Whitstable on a Friday or Saturday night, and you will see the drug being used everywhere.
When the users have gone home, they leave behind the consequences. They do not see the toddlers picking up the shiny thing from the beach the next day to play with. They do not see the dog trying to eat one in a park—including my own daft dog, I am afraid. They do not see the volunteers who put in hours picking up litter that otherwise would be swept out to sea, casually discarded after a few moments of fun.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The point that the hon. Lady is making about items being discarded at the roadside is true of Pollokshields in my constituency as well. The local environmental group has been going out and finding that this is an increasing problem in the community. I thank her very much for raising it, because it is a growing issue and the Government should be alive to the problems that it is causing in our communities.
Rosie Duffield
I thank the hon. Lady. I will be mentioning the environment in a little while.
According to last month’s guest blog in the British Medical Journal written by three eminent voices from the pharmaceutical sector, despite the scarcity of information on the economic and health burden, a number of unsafe practices in nitrous oxide use have been reported, including inhaling it from the nozzle of a whipped cream dispenser, from plastic bags, or directly from a tank. Reported deaths have been caused by sudden cardiac arrhythmias and/or asphyxiation. Between 2010 and 2017, more than 30 people died in England and Wales from nitrous oxide use. The latest figures show an average of five people per year, but data on these deaths is not currently routinely gathered by hospitals. The number of patients presenting to healthcare services with neurological damage due to nitrous oxide consumption is expected to rise. It can cause hypoxia and brain damage, and in some cases can be highly and instantly addictive. Symptoms such as personality changes, emotional disorders, impulsive and aggressive behaviours, hallucinations, illusions and other psychotic symptoms can all be the result of nitrous oxide abuse. Despite the name, it really is no laughing matter.
Let us not forget another really important factor, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss): nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. It can stay in the atmosphere for up to 150 years, absorbing radiation and trapping heat, so not only is its misuse a blight on our society and a danger to people’s health, but it has an environmental impact too. These canisters will sit in landfills for ever.
It is clear that tighter regulations around the sale of nitrous oxide are now needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) has written to Amazon about this recently, and it is a growing concern in his constituency. I agree with the British Compressed Gases Association, which is also calling on the Government to use their consumer protection powers for much tighter regulations on sales, and which says that legitimate users, such as those using it as medical pain-relieving gas, would not be adversely affected by tighter controls. I agree also with Professor Gino Martini and his expert colleagues, who are calling for provision of identification for the purchase of nitrous oxide, raising the age of sales to people over 25 and restricting quantities per purchase.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on a really important matter that has a huge impact on my constituents. Does she agree that it is important to look at the penalty for possession because, as it stands, there is none?
Rosie Duffield
My hon. Friend raises a really good point, but this is particularly about restricting the buying of nitrous oxide and what it is used for, rather than punishing the young people. However, I thank her for raising that.
One retailer of catering supplies last week had an order for 38,000 chargers from one person, and I do not think it was from a coffee shop reopening after lockdown. Quite rightly, he refused this questionable sale. Tighter regulations on sale and better education on the risks rather than overly criminalising the often young users of this drug is, in my opinion, the right way to go. We cannot stand by and simply say, “Let’s leave this. After all, it is less toxic than alcohol, cannabis or ecstasy.” That attitude just is not acceptable, as nitrous oxide has plenty of risks in its own right.
I am calling on the Government to introduce essential tighter restrictions on the sale of nitrous oxide, backing up our hard-working paramedics, nurses, doctors and scientists, who are all calling for more to be done so that this year’s zeitgeist for nitrous oxide does not turn into a national disgrace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is standing, but this is an Adjournment debate and it is not open to everybody to speak. Hon. Members have to have fulfilled certain conditions to do so. I am not aware of that having happened—therefore, they have not been fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman may intervene on the Minister, if the Minister wishes to take the intervention—hon. Members can make their point but they cannot make a speech in the Adjournment debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I thank the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for securing this debate, providing the opportunity for the House to discuss the misuse of nitrous oxide, which, as comments so far have indicated, is a concern across our United Kingdom.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Minister take on board the fact that my constituents share the concerns of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and that of many other Government Members, too? This really needs serious action.
Kevin Foster
I take that point. As we have heard, the recreational use of this gas is a problem. Many of our constituents are concerned about the impact of the misuse of nitrous oxide, not only on the physical and mental wellbeing of users, but on their communities through associated problems such as antisocial behaviour and the small canisters left littering our streets. The Government are conscious of these concerns and the need to respond to them.
Matt Vickers
This is a huge and growing problem, and I am hoping that my hon. Friend will consider the need not only to restrict this but to educate people so that parents know what these canisters are, and young people know the risk and the harm that they do to themselves when they consume them.
Kevin Foster
Absolutely—it is about being clear that laughing gas is no laughing matter, in terms of the impact that it can have on people’s health.
Nitrous oxide is considered a psychoactive substance under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. As has been touched on, it has legitimate uses in medicine, dentistry and even as a propellant for whipped cream canisters, but it is an offence to supply nitrous oxide if someone knows that it will be used for its psychoactive effect, or is reckless in that regard, rather than for a legitimate purpose. Those convicted under the Act may be subject to a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
We have the same problem as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on the beaches. It seems to be the fashion of the day. The Minister said that there are controls on retailers, but I have just looked online and eBay is selling these things—100 for £48.95—despite the guidance from the Government that this should not be on open sale. Something is going wrong with these online retailers, and something needs to be done.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come in a minute to some things we are looking at—a package partly around online harms more generally, which include, of course, things being sold online and where people are being reckless as to what may end up being done with them.
In 2016, there were 28 convictions under this legislation in England and Wales, with 152 convictions in 2017, 107 convictions in 2018 and 52 convictions in 2019. These figures include those related to nitrous oxide, but a breakdown by drug substance is not available.
In November 2018, the Government published a review of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which provided detailed insight into the way in which the Act has affected the sale and use of potentially harmful psychoactive substances. The review concluded that, after the 2016 Act came into force, 332 retailers across the United Kingdom were identified as having closed down, including many so-called head shops, or stopped selling new psychoactive substances. Anecdotal evidence from the police shows that open sale of NPSs on our high streets ceased. Meanwhile, action by the National Crime Agency resulted in the removal of psychoactive substances being sold by UK-based websites.
The Government have published guidance for retailers to satisfy themselves that they comply with the law, recommending that retailers, including those operating online, should pay particular attention to the potential for abuse of nitrous oxide, especially where customers seek to buy in bulk or larger volumes, or where, by the nature of the sale, it is clear they are unlikely to be used for legitimate purposes. I would also point out that the sale of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects is illegal regardless of the age of the purchaser, although selling to children could well undermine a retailer’s defence that they had taken appropriate steps to prevent its being misused and were effectively being reckless.
Turning to the need for tighter online regulations, the Online Harms White Paper sets out the Government’s plans to make companies more responsible for their users’ safety online, especially for children and other vulnerable groups. The supply of psychoactive substances for their psychoactive effect will fall within the scope of the planned legislation set out in the White Paper. The Government’s initial response to the consultation on the White Paper was published in February, which gave more detail on the policy position and named Ofcom as the Government’s preferred independent online harms regulator. We will publish a full response to the consultation in the coming months and, crucially, aim to bring legislation before Parliament in this Session.
The Government are committed to helping people feel safe in their local area, and are giving police the powers and resources to do this. The police funding settlement for 2020-21 sets out the biggest increase in funding for the policing system in a decade. The Government will provide a total police funding settlement of up to £15.2 billion in 2020-21, which is an increase of up to £1.12 billion compared with 2019-20, including main grant, council tax precept and national priorities. Police and crime commissioners will receive £700 million to recruit up to 6,000 additional officers by the end of March 2021. These will be shared among the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. The increase in officer numbers will help the forces in England and Wales tackle crime and keep our communities safe, including by tackling problems associated with nitrous oxide abuse.
Turning to the role of local government, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced powers such as public space protection orders that the police and local councils can use to prevent people from taking intoxicating substances, including psychoactive substances such as nitrous oxide, in specified areas. I know the hon. Member for Canterbury will be working with her local council to ensure these are used, where appropriate, in her constituency, as I saw the coverage in the local press of this debate when she had secured it.
With regard to the littering associated with the misuse of nitrous oxide, often the small canisters left lying in the street, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) mentioned, can be not just unsightly but a danger to road users. Local councils have a statutory duty to keep their land clear of litter and refuse. It is, of course, an offence to drop litter, and councils have legal powers to take enforcement action against offenders. Anyone caught littering may be prosecuted in a magistrates court, which can lead to a criminal record, although instead of prosecuting, councils normally will decide to issue a fixed penalty or on-the-spot fine. We have increased the maximum fixed penalty for littering from £80 to £150 since April 2018, and from April 2019 the minimum fixed penalty was also raised from £50 to £65. We have also given councils in England outside London new civil penalty powers to tackle littering from vehicles.
We recognise that in the current circumstances local authorities may well have more challenges than usual in collecting all kinds of waste, as outlined in the speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury. The Government have therefore announced a multibillion-pound support package for local authorities, in responding to the covid-19 pandemic, to ensure these demands can be met.
Craig Mackinlay
The Minister has outlined the legislation, as well as the background to the powers that councils have and that the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 gives us, but very few offences are taken further under that Act, which is disappointing. The frustration the public have is that although we have oodles of legislation, we do not seem to be applying it.
Kevin Foster
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s frustration, and having campaigned for the 2016 Act I know what the situation was before that, when the theory was that a shop would be selling research chemicals, with the idea that a research chemist was going to walk down the street and buy something for their next project. That is why we introduced that Act. We are looking to legislate further on online harms, taking on board some of the points made about where things can be bought online, and tightening those provisions. Similarly, particularly where there are problems in local areas—for example, if people are taking substances on the street—there are powers that can be used. Similar powers can also be applied to those drinking alcohol. That is not a criminal offence in itself, but if it leads to antisocial behaviour and those tests are met, an order can be applied for to prevent that taking place in a particular location.
Mr Steve Baker
The Minister is giving a great response, but is not the truth that young people need hope and joy in their lives? We will not be able to fulfil that request tonight, but at some point the Government must start thinking about how to help young people to be happy and not need laughing gas.
Kevin Foster
I cannot understand why my hon. Friend thinks that a parliamentary Adjournment debate will not fill people with joy and happiness. They always seem to fill the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) with joy, as well as us when we see him in his place. I do agree, however, and that is one reason why we have not looked to criminalise the possession or use of laughing gas, because that is a different position. My hon. Friend is right to say that this cannot just be about law enforcement, and that we need a wider strategy.
One part of our strategy when dealing with drug misuse is education, and we want to do all we can to prevent people from using drugs, and intervene early to prevent an escalation to more harmful use. As my hon. Friend will know, FRANK, the Government’s free national drugs information and advice service, provides information on nitrous oxide, and outlines the harms such as dizziness, vitamin B deficiency and nerve damage that can result from long-term use. We continue to update FRANK to reflect new and emerging patterns of drug use.
We also support investment in evidence-based programmes that have a positive impact on young people and adults, giving them the confidence, resilience and risk management skills to resist drug use. For example, we support Rise Above, which is an online resilience-building resource aimed at 11 to 16-year-olds. It provides resources to help young people develop the skills to make positive choices for their health. Schools play a key role in enabling young people to make positive choices about their wellbeing, including resisting drug use. Relationship, sex and health education will become a compulsory subject in schools from September 2020, with some flexibility to reflect the current challenges related to covid-19 that schools face. That subject uses evidence-based approaches to give children and young people the resilience and critical thinking skills that are needed to support decisions about drug use.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The Government recognise that tackling the misuse of nitrous oxide requires a multifaceted approach. This is not just about enforcement or tackling retailers; we must ensure that young people—indeed, people of all ages, as the use of this substances is not confined to young people—understand the long-term implications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, we must ensure that people have joy, hope and optimism in their life, and part of tackling the use of drugs is ensuring that people do not feel that they need to turn to them instead. The Government look forward to working productively with Members across the House to develop that strategy, and ensure that our communities are protected from harm.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
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 |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | 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 |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | 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 |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) | Stuart Andrew |
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 Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Mark Tami |
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 |
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) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Mark Tami |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | 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 |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Mark Tami |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) | Patrick Grady |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) | Mark Tami |
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 |
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 |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Mark Tami |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Mark Tami |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Mark Tami |
Written Statements
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Offshore Wind Projects
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
This statement concerns the application made by Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd for development consent for the installation, operation and maintenance of the proposed Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm, its related offshore infrastructure off the coast of Norfolk and its related onshore electrical connections within that county.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The statutory decision deadline for Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm was reset previously to allow for further consideration of environmental issues. The latest deadline for the application was 1 July 2020.
On 1 July 2020, the Secretary of State issued a letter stating that he was minded to grant consent to the Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm but that he required further information in respect of potential adverse environmental effects on the Flamborough and Filey coast special protection area. In order to provide Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd with sufficient time to provide that information and for other interested parties to comment, he has decided to set a new deadline of 31 December 2020.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decisions on whether to grant or refuse development consents for them.
[HCWS414]
Beneficial Owners of Overseas Entities
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My right hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State, Minister for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility (Lord Duncan), has today made the following statement:
The United Kingdom has a reputation as a good place to do business. Our high corporate standards and market transparency give people trust and confidence in our markets. We recognise that knowing whom you are really doing business with improves confidence in commerce and investment and we continue to work on improvements to the strong systems that we already have in place.
However, the same factors that make the UK an attractive location to set up and operate a business also make it attractive to exploitation. One such area of exploitation is the UK’s property market, which continues to be an attractive vehicle for criminal investment, in particular for high-end money laundering. The risks relating to the laundering of dirty money through property are most acute where property is owned anonymously through corporate structures or trusts. The Government are therefore working to crack down on this illicit activity by creating a register of the beneficial owners of overseas entities which own or buy property in the UK.
The Government committed in primary legislation, through section 50 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, to report to Parliament annually on the progress that has been made towards putting in place such a register. The register is included as one of the key measures of the UK’s “Economic Crime Plan 2019-22”1, and the December 2019 Queen’s Speech included a commitment to progress the required legislation.
The draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee in spring 2019. The Government’s response to the Committee’s report was published on 18 July 20192. In this response, the Government accepted many of the Committee’s recommendations, such as ensuring Companies House is given adequate resources to deal with additional filings under this register; introducing a reporting facility for inaccurate information on the register; and continuing to advance work on reforming the powers of Companies House to verify information. For example, overseas entities seeking to register with Companies House will be required to have their details verified, thereby ensuring that the new register will be sufficiently robust. The Government have been exploring how best to implement these recommendations and others proposed in the Committee’s report, such as civil sanctions, and what options are available.
This register will be novel, and careful consideration is needed before any measures are adopted, as it is imperative that the register is as robust as it reasonably can be, with reliable data and sufficient deterrent effects to make it clear that the UK property market is not a safe haven for dirty money. Engagement with members of civil society, business and the property market throughout all nations of the United Kingdom has been ongoing to ensure the proposed measures work equitably across the country.
The UK continues to lead the global fight against illicit finance and this register will strengthen our already impressive controls. The Financial Action Task Force completed a landmark review of the UK’s regime for tackling money laundering in December 2018, concluding that we have some of the strongest controls in the world.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economic-crime- plan-2019-to-2022
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft- registration-of-overseas-entities-billgovernment-response-to-joint-committee-report
[HCWS413]
Government Chemist Review
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The twenty-third annual review of the Government Chemist has been received. The review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses plus those of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
The Government Chemist is the referee analyst named in Acts of Parliament. The Government Chemist’s team carry out analysis in high-profile or legally disputed cases. A diverse range of referee analysis work was carried out during 2019, such as mycotoxin contaminants, pesticides residues, food contact materials, choking hazards, food allergens and genetically modified organisms dispute cases. The Government Chemist function continues to make headway on evaluating and optimising digital PCR for food authenticity testing.
[HCWS415]
Senior Civil Service, Senior Military and Judiciary: Pay Awards
(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)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the senior civil service (SCS), senior military and the judiciary.
The Government received the senior salary review body’s (SSRB) report on 2020 pay for the senior civil service, senior military and the judiciary on 24 June 2020. This will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
The Government value the independent expertise and insight of the senior salaries review body (SSRB) and take on board the valuable advice and principles set out in response to the Government’s recommendations outlined in the report.
Senior civil service recommendations and response for 2020-21
The SSRB recommended a 2% pay award for the SCS allocated in the following priority order:
To mitigate anomalies arising from lack of pay progression and to alleviate other pay anomalies.
To increase the pay band minima.
To provide increase to those not benefiting from increase to the minima or those benefiting by less than 1%.
The SSRB also recommended incremental steps to reduce the maxima and commented on priority work to be undertaken for the 2021-22 pay award.
The Government accept the SSRB’s recommendations in full, but will continue to delay work on reducing the maxima until the capability based pay progression system is in place.
Judiciary recommendations and response for 2020-21
The recommendations made by the SSRB for the judiciary are:
A pay award of 2% for all judicial office holders within the remit group for 2020-21, applied equally to all salary groups.
Upper tribunal judges (including the surveyor members of the Lands Chamber) and
Senior masters and registrars to be moved to a new salary group between their existing salary group of 6.1 and the higher group 5.
The introduction of leadership allowances for circuit judges who take on the currently unrewarded roles of resident judges, designated family judges and designated civil judges.
The Government accept the SSRB’s recommendations in full and note that these recommendations are predicated on the implementation of reform of judicial pensions, to address ongoing recruitment and retention problems.
Senior military recommendations and response for 2020-21
The Government accept the SSRB’s headline pay award recommendation for senior military officers of 2-star rank and above. A 2% consolidated pay award will be implemented in September salaries and backdated to 1 April 2020.
The Government accept the SSRB’s recommendations on senior military salaries to maintain the 10% increase to base pay on promotion from 1-star rank and to not change the current pay differentials for senior medical and dental officers.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-21/HCWS411/.
[HCWS411]
Finance Bill 2020-21: Draft Legislation and Tax Documents
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
In line with the tax policy making framework, the Government are publishing draft legislation to be included in the Finance Bill 20-21, to allow for technical consultation and provide taxpayers with predictability over future tax policy changes.
Alongside this, the Government are making announcements on tax administration, business rates, and a number of other areas of tax policy. The Government are also publishing a number of previously announced tax policy documents. Measures that come into effect immediately or retrospectively are previously announced, or are technical amendments to ensure legislation works as intended.
As announced on 28 April, the Government have extended the consultation periods for plastic packaging tax, R&D SME Tax Credit PAYE cap, construction industry scheme abuse, and notification of uncertain tax treatment by large businesses in response to the covid-19 outbreak. As a result of this extension, the Government will publish the draft legislation for these measures later in the autumn.
Reform of tax administration
The Government are announcing a roadmap for making tax digital, alongside their long-term plans for tax administration reform. These reforms are intended to make it easier to pay tax due, enhance resilience, effectiveness, and support for taxpayers.
The Government are publishing a document setting out their vision for a trusted, modern tax administration system that is fit for the 21st century and keeps pace with the many countries already operating digital tax regimes. This sets out an ambition for the tax system to work closer to real-time, improving its resilience, effectiveness and support for taxpayers.
The Government are committed to delivering a modern tax service for the UK’s increasingly digital businesses and their agents.
Digital tools and services can make it easier for businesses to keep on top of their tax affairs, and improve their productivity. Independent research commissioned by HMRC shows that businesses within MTD which fully integrate their accounting and tax software report spend less time on their tax. Micro-businesses who use software to manage their accounts have over 10% higher productivity, according to the Enterprise Research Centre.
Digital tools also reduce the scope for avoidable errors which cost the Exchequer £8.5 billion in lost revenue in 2018-19, and make the tax administration system less burdensome for those taxpayers who want to do the right thing.
The covid-19 pandemic has also highlighted the need for a more flexible, resilient and responsive tax system that provides businesses and HMRC with more up-to-date information on businesses and their finances, and enables easier identification and better targeting of taxpayer support.
The Government are therefore announcing a roadmap for HMRC’s Making Tax Digital programme. Since April 2019, most VAT-registered taxpayers with a turnover above the VAT threshold have needed to operate Making Tax Digital for their VAT returns, keeping their records digitally and updating HMRC through secure software. Over 1.4 million taxpayers are successfully using this system. This includes over 30% of VAT-registered businesses with turnover below the VAT threshold who have joined voluntarily. The Government will introduce legislation in Finance Bill 2020-21 to extend Making Tax Digital for VAT to all businesses below the VAT threshold from April 2022, to ensure every VAT-registered business takes the step to move to a modern, digital tax service.
The Government remain committed to extending Making Tax Digital to other taxes. The Making Tax Digital programme will therefore be extended through new regulations to businesses and landlords within income tax self-assessment from April 2023. This timetable allows businesses, landlords and agents time to plan, and gives software providers enough notice to bring new Making Tax Digital products to market, including free software for businesses with the simplest tax affairs. HMRC will expand its pilot service from April 2021 to allow businesses and landlords to test the full end-to-end service before the requirement to join.
The Government will also consult in the autumn on the detail of extending Making Tax Digital to incorporated businesses with Corporate Tax obligations.
A consultation response will be published setting out how the Government will amend HMRC’s civil information powers, to ensure the UK can continue to comply with international tax transparency standards.
Further policy announcements:
The Government have made a number of further policy decisions which are being announced today, relating to:
Business rates revaluation
Under current legislation, the next revaluation would take effect on 1 April 2022 based on pre-covid-19 property values as of 1 April 2019. In May 2020, the Government announced a postponement to provide greater certainty for firms affected by the impacts of covid-19.
The Government are today announcing that the next revaluation of non-domestic property in England will instead take effect on 1 April 2023. So that it better reflects the impact of covid-19, it will be based on property values as of 1 April 2021.
Small brewers relief
The Government have concluded their review of this relief. In order to support growth, boost productivity and remove “cliff-edges”, the scheme’s taper will be smoothed. It will take effect more gradually over a wider range of production, starting at 2,100 hectolitres per year, and be converted to a cash basis. A technical consultation will be brought forward in the autumn. The Government will also consult on the potential for a grace period for small breweries that decide to merge.
Post-EU exit alcohol review
The Government recognise the need to reform the current duty system to support the alcoholic drinks and pubs sector in the longer term, and will publish a call for evidence before end September 2020.
Tackling promoters of tax avoidance
Tackling promoters of tax avoidance—The Government are publishing a consultation and draft legislation on further, tougher measures to tackle those who promote and market tax avoidance schemes, as announced at spring Budget. This builds on the anti-avoidance regimes that have already been introduced by the Government, which have helped to reduce the avoidance tax gap from £3.7 billion in 2005 to 2006 to £1.7 billion in 2018 to 2019. The Government will bring forward further ambitious proposals in the autumn to strengthen their response to promoters who seek to sidestep the rules.
Employee share ownership
Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI)—The Government will legislate in Finance Bill 2020-21 to ensure that employers can issue new EMI share options to individuals who have been furloughed, have taken unpaid leave or have had their working hours reduced below EMI’s current statutory working time requirement as a result of covid-19.
Previously announced publications
The Government have published the following tax policy documents, previously announced at the spring Budget:
The business rates review call for evidence.
The call for evidence on pensions tax administration.
The consultation on the design of a carbon emissions tax.
The consultation on national insurance contributions holiday for employers of veterans.
The consultation on whether qualifying R&D tax credit costs should include investments in data and cloud computing.
The consultation on the economic crime levy.
The summary of responses to the call for evidence on the operation of insurance premium tax.
The summary of responses and Government next steps to the aggregates levy review.
The summary of responses to the non-UK resident SDLT surcharge consultation.
For other consultations, the Government are continuing to consider the responses and will respond in due course.
Technical tax changes
In addition, the Government are publishing a small number of technical tax changes, which are previously announced or provide technical easements for policy. These include measures relating to:
Changes to termination payments rules, post-employment notice pay (PENP) calculation at s. 402D(1) ITEPA 2003, and amendment of s.27 ITEPA 2003—Changes to current PENP calculation to avoid unfair outcomes if an employee’s pay period is defined in months, but the contractual notice period is expressed in weeks, and changes to ensure non-residents who receive PENP are taxed fairly.
Legislation with immediate effect
The Government have published legislation for the following measures that will have immediate or retrospective effect:
Corporate interest restriction amendments—The first amendment clarifies the way special provisions apply for real estate investment trusts; this comes into force today. The second amendment ensures that no penalties arise for the late filing of an interest restriction return where there is a “reasonable excuse”; this applies from 1 April 2017 when the CIR rules commenced.
Enterprise Management Incentives (EMI) amendments—This legislation will apply retrospectively from 19 March, and is in addition to protecting existing EMI share options holders from the effects of covid-19, as legislated for in the Finance Act 2020, previous Finance Bill.
Annual Tax On Enveloped Dwellings—This measure introduces a new relief from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) for housing co-operatives, those which are not publicly funded providers of social housing, which own UK residential property valued in excess of £500,000. The measure will come into effect retrospectively from 1 April 2020, allowing eligible housing co-operatives to claim a refund for the 2020-21 chargeable period.
In addition to these policy announcements, consultations and technical amendments, the Government are publishing draft legislation as announced at the spring Budget:
Benefit charge
Collective money purchases pension schemes
S4C Section 33 VATA
Conditionality: hidden economy
Draft legislation is accompanied by a Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN), an Explanatory Note (EN) and, where applicable, a summary of responses to consultation document. All publications can be found on the www.gov.uk website. The Government’s tax consultation tracker has also been updated.
[HCWS400]
Armed Forces Pay
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today I am announcing the Government’s decision on pay rises for the armed forces.
The armed forces pay review body (AFPRB) has made a recommendation for a 2% increase for the 2020 pay award. We are accepting this recommendation in full (to be implemented in September salaries, backdated to 1 April 2020), and I am today laying the 2020 report.
The pay award represents an annual increase of £643 in the nominal average salary in the armed forces (which is at the corporal level), as well as an annual increase of £545 in the starting salary for an officer.
For all cohorts, this is additional to the non-contributory defined benefit pension and access to incremental pay progression.
The AFPRB also made recommendations on rises and changes to other targeted forms of remuneration and on the increase to food and accommodation charges which have been accepted. Where applicable, these rate changes will be backdated to 1 April 2020.
The Government greatly value and appreciate the role military personnel have in delivering essential services. This year we are delivering a real-terms pay increase for the third time. The hard work and dedication of our people throughout this difficult period are important to us and not taken for granted.
We are conscious that public sector pay awards must deliver value for money for the taxpayer. The coronavirus is having a very significant impact on the economy and the fiscal position, and the Government will need to continue to take this into account in agreeing public sector pay awards.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-21/HCWS410/.
[HCWS410]
Teachers' Pay Award
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The 30th report of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) is being published today. Its recommendations cover the remit issued in September 2019. The report contains recommendations on the pay award for teachers that is due to be implemented from September 2020.
The STRB has recommended a 5.5% uplift to the minima of the main pay range and a 2.75% uplift to the maxima of the main pay range and the minima and maxima of all other pay ranges and allowances in the national pay framework. These recommendations are equivalent to a 3.1% increase in the overall pay-bill.
The STRB has also recommended advisory pay points on the main pay range and upper pay range.
I am pleased to confirm my proposed response is to accept these recommendations in full.
This teachers’ pay award—the largest since 2005—helps to recognise the extraordinary efforts of our teachers and leaders. It provides for a substantial above-inflation increase to the pay ranges for all teachers and leaders.
For example, for an experienced teacher at the top of the upper pay range this pay award could mean an increase of between £1,114 and £1,364, depending on location. Furthermore, this pay award is the continuation of several years of substantial pay awards—last year all pay ranges were uplifted by 2.75% and in 2018 uplifts to pay ranges averaged at 2.4%.
Furthermore, this Government made a commitment to increase starting salaries nationally for teachers to £30,000 by 2022-23. This pay award takes the first step to delivering this commitment, with a 5.5% increase to starting salaries worth between £1,341 and £1,677 depending on location. This will mean that starting salaries for new teachers will be between £25,714 and £32,157 depending on location in the 2020-21 academic year.
These substantial increases to teacher starting pay will help ensure teaching is rightly regarded as a well-rewarded and prestigious profession, enabling us to attract the most able graduates and career changers into teaching to support improved outcomes for pupils.
This pay award also takes a decisive step towards a pay structure which better supports teacher retention, with large increases to early career pay where we know retention is most challenging. Alongside other crucial reforms such as the early career framework and new national professional qualifications, this pay award will help to ensure we are retaining great teachers through the crucial early career phase.
Finally, this pay award will be affordable, on average, nationally for schools thanks to this Government’s three-year investment package announced at the 2019 spending round. We are increasing core schools funding by £2.6 billion this year, £4.8 billion in 2021-22 and £7.1 billion in 2022-23, compared to 2019-20. As previously set out, from 2021-22 the funding schools currently receive through the teachers’ pay and pension grants will be part of schools’ core funding allocations, as determined by the schools national funding formula, and there will be no increase to these grants in respect of this year’s pay award.
A full list of the recommendations and my proposed approach for all pay and allowance ranges can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-21/HCWS402/.
My officials will write to all of the statutory consultees of the STRB to invite them to contribute to a consultation on the Government’s response to these recommendations and on a revised schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document and pay order. The consultation will last for eight weeks.
[HCWS402]
Office for Environmental Protection: Contingency Fund Advance
(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)
DEFRA has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £215,000.
The requirement has arisen because there is an urgent requirement to proceed with setting up the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) in advance of Royal Assent of the Environment Bill.
Under managing public money rules, expenditure to make preparation for the delivery of a new service prior to Royal Assent requires an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The cash advance will pay for essential set up expenditure on public appointments, minimal staff recruitment to begin, and essential services that are needed for establishing for the OEP. The need to spend now in advance of Royal Assent is driven by the necessary timelines associated with recruitment, procurement and set up which are expected to take several months. This will ensure that the OEP can be brought into operation and begin exercising its statutory functions as soon as practical after Royal Assent of the Environment Bill.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £215,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £215,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS401]
NHS Pay Review Body: Government Response
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the 33rd report of the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB). The report has been laid before Parliament today (Cm260). Copies of the report are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
As this is the third and final year of the three-year Agenda for Change pay and contract reform deal (2018-19 to 2020-21), the NHSPRB did not make any pay recommendations for 2020-21.
This multi-year deal has delivered year-on-year pay increases for our much valued NHS staff, and as part of this we have increased the starting salary for a newly qualified nurse by over 12% and increased the lowest starting salary within the NHS by over 16%.
The Government welcome the 33rd report of the NHSPRB and are grateful to the chair and members for all their work and helpful observations at what is a challenging time for our NHS. The report rightly recognises the hard work and dedication of our NHS staff in responding to the covid-19 pandemic, and makes helpful observations on effective workforce planning and how best to support the development of the NHS workforce.
The upcoming People Plan will seek to address many of the observations made by the NHSPRB, and the Government remain committed to delivering on their manifesto commitment to deliver 50,000 more nurses in the NHS by 2025.
[HCWS409]
Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Body: Government Response
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the 48th report of the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Renumeration (DDRB). The report has been laid before Parliament today (Cm259). I am grateful to the chair and members of the DDRB for their report.
This report has been produced during what is an incredibly challenging time for our NHS and the DDRB report rightly recognises the tremendous effort of all of our clinical staff on the frontline of the covid-19 response. They have shown true resolve, professionalism and dedication throughout this challenging time for our NHS.
Thanks to the Government’s investment in the NHS and the certainty provided in the long-term funding settlement, the Government are pleased to accept the DDRB’s recommendations in full, providing a much deserved pay rise for our doctors and dentists working across the NHS.
The Government greatly value and appreciate the role public sector workers have in delivering essential public services, and we are delivering a real-terms pay increase to show that we mean it. The hard work and dedication of our public servants are something we do not take for granted.
We are conscious that public sector pay awards must deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Covid-19 is having a very significant impact on the economy and the fiscal position, and the Government will need to continue to take this into account in agreeing public sector pay awards. It is important that public sector pay is fair to both public sector workers and the taxpayer. Around a quarter of all public spending is spent on pay and we need to ensure that our public services remain affordable for the future.
Today’s pay award is worth on basic pay:
Between £2,200 and £3,000 for consultants
Between £1,100 and £2,100 for specialty doctors
Between £1,500 and £2,600 for associate specialists
This Government have invested heavily in our NHS and its workforce. We have backed the NHS by passing the NHS Funding Act which enshrines in law the largest cash settlement in NHS history as well as clearing billions of pounds worth of debt for NHS trusts. We also pledged that all public services would get whatever financial support they needed to deal with the covid-19 pandemic and we are working at pace to ensure the supply of vital funding and resources continues. We have also delivered on a manifesto commitment to address the tax issue in doctors’ pensions by listening closely to the concerns of senior clinicians. The Chancellor confirmed at Budget that both annual allowance taper thresholds will be increased by £90,000 from 6 April 2020, removing anyone with income below £200,000 from the scope of the tapered annual allowance. The incentive to take on extra NHS work is now restored, and clinicians can earn an additional £90,000 before reaching the new taper threshold. These measures will take up to 96% of GPs and 98% of NHS consultants outside the scope of the taper based on their NHS income.
The DDRB was asked not to make a pay recommendation for contractor general medical practitioners (GMPs) or doctors and dentists in training as both groups are moving into the second year of their respective multi-year deals. The significant investment in GMP core practice funding, as part of the five-year contract, provided greater certainty for GMPs to forward plan. The contract as agreed in 2019, and via further amendments in 2020, has also set out significant additional investment in a new state-backed indemnity scheme, the introduction of primary care networks and reimbursement for additional staff. For doctors and dentists in training the multi-year deal will mean all junior doctor pay scales will have increased by 8.2% by the end of the deal, and in addition circa £90 million is being invested to reform the contract, including to create a new, higher pay point to recognise the most experienced doctors in training.
Affordability has to be a consideration of Government when responding to the DDRB. Accepting the DDRB’s recommendations will require difficult trade-offs and reprioritisation of spending within the wider context of the original financial plan set out in the NHS long-term plan. However, the Government deem accepting the DDRB’s recommendations as important to reward and retain valued NHS staff.
In addition to retaining existing staff, the Government are committed to increasing workforce supply. That is why by September this year we will have opened five new medical schools in England so that we can continue to grow our domestic medical workforce. The new schools will help to deliver a 25% increase in the number of available places and by September we expect there will be an extra 1,500 medical students entering training each year, compared to 2017.
The Government’s response to the recommendations is as follows:
Accept the recommendation for a uniform 2.8% uplift in pay across the whole of the DDRB’s remit group with the exception of those already in multi-year deals. This includes uplifting the value of the GMP trainers grant, the GMP appraisers’ grant and the minimum and maximum of the pay range for salaried GMPs.
To accept the recommendation to freeze the value of national and local clinical excellence awards (CEAs), commitment awards, distinction awards and discretionary points.
Salaried GMPs
For salaried GMPs the minimum and maximum pay range will be uplifted. As self-employed contractors, it is largely up to GP practices how they distribute pay to their employees. Employers have the flexibility to offer enhanced terms and conditions—for example, to aid recruitment and retention.
Specialty doctors (new grade 2008) and associate specialists (closed grade)
For specialty doctors and associate specialists (SAS doctors) the Government take note of the DDRB’s comments on the need for improved recognition and career development. Negotiations on a multi-year pay agreement, incorporating contract reform, for this group of doctors are progressing and we hope to reach agreement in time for the next pay year.
Clinical excellence awards
The Government also acknowledge the DDRB’s comments on clinical excellence awards and its reasons for not recommending an increase in their value. With this in mind, we will progress our plans to reform these awards with a view to introducing new arrangements from 2022.
General dental practitioners
A 2.8% general uplift in the pay element of their contract backdated to April 2020.
The Government have also fully acknowledged the DDRB’s comments on the lack of progress on the dental contract reform and we appreciate the frustration with the pace of reform. NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care need to be confident that the prototype contract, which has been tested, has proven that it has the ability to maintain or increase access, improve oral health, and is affordable for the NHS while also being sustainable for dental practices, before taking decisions on wider national implementation.
[HCWS407]
National Crime Agency Pay Award
(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) Remuneration Review Body has recently made recommendations on pay and allowances for NCA officers designated with operational powers. I would like to thank the Chair and members of the review body for their work on gathering evidence from the NCA, the Home Office, HMT and the trade unions, resulting in their detailed and thorough report. The review body’s work is of great value, ensuring that officers of a lower grade than deputy director designated with operational powers are properly remunerated for their work.
This Government are committed to helping the NCA in its fight against serious and organised crime (SOC). That is why they commissioned an independent review of SOC capabilities, funding and governance and why they committed to strengthening the NCA in their election manifesto.
SOC is evolving rapidly in both volume and complexity. I have been clear that the NCA needs to transform to meet the threat head on. Part of this transformation includes being able to attract, recruit and retain the right people. This review body’s recommendations help support the NCA to achieve that goal and are as follows:
For officers on the standard ranges:
the pay range minima for grades 1 to 4 increase by 2.5%;
the pay range minima for grades 5 and 6 increase by 4.25% and 4.5% respectively;
the pay range maxima for grades 1 to 6 increase by 1.5%;
and all officers should receive a consolidated pay award that maintains their percentile position on the pay range.
The spot rates for grades 4 and 5 are increased by 3% and 4.5% respectively.
London weighting allowance is increased by 2.5% to £3,424
Shift allowance is increased to 20% of base pay.
These awards will be fully funded within the NCA’s existing budget. The small number of officers electing to remain on the terms and conditions of pre-cursor organisations will remain on their previous pay rates.
This award represents a significant real terms increase, the third year in a row where this is the case. The average salary at the NCA is £36,794, this is up by 4.3% since 2018.
The Government continue to balance the need to ensure fair pay for public sector workers with protecting funding for frontline services and ensuring affordability for taxpayers. The effects of coronavirus continue to have a significant impact on the economy and the fiscal position and the Government will need to continue to take this into account in agreeing public sector pay awards.
[HCWS405]
Police Pay
(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 sixth annual report of the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB) was published today. The body made recommendations on pay and allowances for police officers up to and including the chief officer ranks in England and Wales. We value the role of the independent PRRB and thank the Chair and members for their detailed consideration and observations of the matters raised in relation to police pay.
The Government are extremely grateful for the commitment shown by our police officers up and down the country, in keeping the public safe during these unprecedented and challenging times.
The Government have accepted in full the PRRB’s recommendation that a consolidated increase of 2.5% should be awarded to all ranks at all pay points, with a corresponding increase to London weighting and the dog handlers’ allowance, with effect from 1 September 2020.
The PRRB also recommended the removal of the lowest point of the sergeants’ pay scale; and that the maximum rate of London allowance should increase by £1,000 to £5,338 a year for officers appointed on or after 1 September 1994 and not receiving replacement allowance. The Government have accepted these recommendations. These changes will take effect from 1 September 2020.
This is the second year in a row that we have awarded an increase of 2.5% for our police officers and delivers an above inflation increase. Police constables will earn up to £1,002 more this year.
The Government hold in the highest regard the role that public sector workers have in delivering essential public services and we are awarding a real terms pay increase. The hard work and dedication of our public servants throughout this difficult period is something we do not take for granted.
The Government continue to balance the need to ensure fair pay for public sector workers with protecting funding for frontline services and ensuring affordability for taxpayers. The effects of coronavirus continue to have a significant impact on the economy and the fiscal position and the Government will need to continue to take this into account in agreeing public sector pay awards.
[HCWS404]
Security Industry Authority: Annual Report and Accounts
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The 2019-20 Annual Report and Accounts for the Security Industry Authority (HC647) is being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS406]
Prison Service Pay Review Body: Government Response
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay rises for prison staff.
The Prison Service pay review body (PSPRB) has made its recommendations for the 2020-21 pay award. The Government value the independent expertise and insight of the PSPRB and take on board the valuable advice, principles outlined, and constructive challenge to the Government’s evidence outlined in the report.
Today I am announcing that we are accepting in full the recommendations made by the review body for implementation from April 2020. For clarity these are recommendations 1, 2 and 4 to 7.
This will deliver a pay rise of at least 2.5% for all prison staff—with cumulative awards of up to 7.5% for some staff when progression pay is taken into account. For a band 3 prison officer on the modern terms and conditions the pay settlement is worth on average £1,086.
This is the third year in a row that we have put in place an award of at least 2% for our prison staff and delivers an above-inflation increase. In addition to their pay, prison officers continue to benefit from defined benefit pensions, which are amongst the most generous available. We are conscious that public sector pay awards must deliver value for money for the taxpayer. Government will continue to take this into account in agreeing public sector pay awards in future.
This award will support the recruitment and retention of prison officers and managers and recognises the essential contribution they make every day—which has only been highlighted by their professional and dedicated response to the unique challenges of delivering safe prisons during the pandemic.
In addition to its core recommendations to be implemented from April 2020, the PSPRB has also recommended a further overall increase of £3,000 for “band 3” prison officers on modernised terms and conditions from September 2020 (recommendation 3).
It is only right that such a substantial increase for our largest staffing group is considered more carefully over the coming months as we move towards the spending review; due to the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the pandemic. The Government will also need to consider the recommendation in the context of the pay rises being given to other hard-working public servants.
Furthermore, we wish to open discussions with recognised trade unions on the implications of this recommendation and how any such uplift in pay might be best implemented in an affordable and mutually beneficial manner alongside workforce reforms that deliver the best value for money for taxpayers.
The Government will therefore announce their response to this recommendation later in the year.
The report has been laid before Parliament today and a copy can be found online. I am grateful to the chair and members of the review body for their report.
The report can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-21/HCWS408/.
[HCWS408]
Intelligence and Security Committee: Publication of the Russia Report
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) has today laid before Parliament a report on Russia, examining the Russian threat to the UK and the UK’s response. I welcome the report and thank the former Committee for the work that has gone into this; this has clearly been an extensive effort spanning almost two years.
The Government are publishing their response to the ISC’s Russia report immediately, recognising the significant public interest in the issues it raises. Copies of the response have been laid before both Houses.
The Committee has also today laid before Parliament its annual report 2018-19. This report highlights the breadth of the Committee’s oversight role and I thank them for their important work.
I would like to thank the former Committee for their work in the last Parliament, and I look forward to working with the newly appointed Committee in the future.
[HCWS403]
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Corporate Plan and Strategy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions, Baroness Stedman-Scott, has made the following written statement.
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation Corporate Plan 2020-21 and the Office for Nuclear Regulation strategy 2020-25. These documents will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, Section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS412]
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Morris of Handsworth
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. 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.
I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to 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.
Hong Kong
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the political situation in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the situation in Hong Kong. China’s new national security law breaches the Sino-British joint declaration and directly threatens a number of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. Early reports of the law’s initial implementation are also troubling. We will not look the other way on Hong Kong and we will continue working with partners to hold China to its international obligations.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister. What prospects are there for fair and free elections in Hong Kong this autumn and what steps are the Government taking to assist young activists, such as Joshua Wong, who are not BNO passport holders?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, obviously there have been elections even this year at local level. We continue to impress on the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese authorities the need to ensure that one country, two systems is sustained, maintained and, indeed, strengthened. However, recent events have indicated otherwise and we continue to lobby both Administrations in this respect, including protecting those people who do not qualify for BNO status.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the statement by the Chinese ambassador a few days ago that we were interfering in China’s internal affairs. Will the Minister make it clear that this is entirely a breach of the Sino-British agreement and that it is not a breach of Chinese internal affairs to stick by the terms of an international treaty? Will he ensure that the widest number of countries take our position of understanding and give us support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. The agreement on one country, two systems that we signed with the Chinese authorities is registered with the UN. China is a P5 member and has international obligations. Therefore, we believe that standing up for the rights of Hong Kong nationals as well as BNOs is absolutely the right thing to do. I assure the noble Lord that we are working with international partners to ensure that we get broad support for the United Kingdom’s position. Indeed, as we saw recently at the Human Rights Council, that is happening.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there was cross-party support for the Foreign Secretary’s shock at seeing the persecution of minorities in China and the suppression of peaceful protestors in Hong Kong. People may also be shocked to know that the Government have given export licences for British-made tear gas, which, according to Amnesty International, is being used against peaceful protestors in Hong Kong, and has granted government export licences for spyware, wire-tapping and surveillance technologies. Will the Minister ensure that the UK’s strategic export control lists are now updated so that no British-made technology can be used in the suppression of minorities or against peaceful protestors in Hong Kong?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord has noted, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made a Statement yesterday in the House extending the embargo on arm sales to mainland China, which will now also be applied to Hong Kong.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, the appointment of senior judges to give service in Hong Kong is an important part of its international character. What are the prospects of that continuing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right to raise this important issue. As we have seen in recent announcements, the appointment of judges has passed to the chief executive, but we also note the important announcement of Lord Reed, who made it clear in his statement on Friday 17 July that whether this practice continues will depend on if such a service remains compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, while I support the actions of the Government, I urge them to consider the ordinary people and companies in Hong Kong who accept the new security law in order to make a livelihood. Please can the Minister confirm that any action taken by the Government is proportionate and supports the rights of both the Hong Kong people and of British and other companies operating there, such as the Hong Kong bank, Standard Chartered, Swire and Jardine, to go about their normal lives and conduct their businesses in this changed environment without gratuitous criticism and recrimination?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the opening paragraphs of the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. They stress again that we see China as an important strategic partner and that we believe that it has a positive role to play on the international stage. However, it must fulfil its international obligations. I cannot speak for private companies, but our challenge is not with them or indeed with the normal citizens of Hong Kong. We believe that their rights should be respected by the Hong Kong Administration and the Chinese authorities. That is what we are standing up for.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, at the beginning of June, the Foreign Secretary suggested that the new Magnitsky powers might be an option in respect of the police brutality and other actions in Hong Kong. Yesterday, in respect of the national security legislation, he said:
“We will patiently gather the evidence, which takes months.”—[Hansard, Commons, 20/7/20; col. 1835.]
What of the clear evidence of Chinese officials being involved in forced organ harvesting and the oppression of the Uighur people? Does the Minister agree that the Government should accelerate the timetable for the Magnitsky sanctions to be imposed on those Chinese officials who are involved in such persecution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, I have made clear on a number of occasions my strong concerns and the fact that Her Majesty’s Government have raised the issues of what is happening with the Uighur people and other minority communities in China. On the specific point about the Magnitsky sanctions, the noble Lord will respect the fact that it is not right to speculate about what any future designations may be.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Hong Kong is just one of the UK’s responsibilities, shared or otherwise, in the Indo-Pacific region. These include, for example, the Korean peninsula and the five power defence arrangements that protect Singapore and Malaysia. In the context of global Britain and the reversal of the east of Suez policy, will the Government provide the details of our international obligations for Hong Kong and the region and confirm that they have the funds and the capacity to meet them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, we believe in a strong, stable and safe Indo-Pacific region. We have stood up for Hong Kong on the basis of our strong belief in principles and in law and we stand firmly in support of the agreement, which has been deposited with the UN. On our wider responsibilities, we continue to work with our international partners in pursuit of those objectives.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. Can the noble Lord the Minister say what steps the UK Government are taking to protect students from Hong Kong and students who might be supporting the rights of the people of Hong Kong in British universities, given the significant evidence of intimidation? What protection will be given to academics and institutions that stand up against such efforts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, the answer is simple. Anyone who breaks the law in the UK by hounding or attempting to intimidate students will be held to account according to the law of the land, which is our law.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I join those who have pressed further on the main issues relating to Hong Kong, including breaches of the joint declaration, the threats to freedom of speech and assembly and the need for democratic elections. My specific question for the Minister is to ask whether talks in relation to the situation in Hong Kong have been held at the Commonwealth level, given that, as a former overseas territory, Hong Kong was once part of the Commonwealth. This could be particularly relevant for young people and students who may wish to pursue their studies not only in the UK but in other parts of the Commonwealth.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we are working in that context with all our partners in the G7 and at the UN. We are also working with Commonwealth nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which are supportive of the UK Government’s position.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, will the loyal veterans of Her Majesty’s Hong Kong Military Service Corps still living in Hong Kong, who have long petitioned Her Majesty’s Government for the right of abode in the UK, be granted this now? Will their request for full British passports, which all other members of the corps retained before 1997, be agreed, in line with the statutory provision for fairness in the military covenant?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has raised this issue consistently and regularly both with me and with my noble friend the Minister of State at the Home Office. Since our last exchange, I have written to the Home Office and I am awaiting a reply. When I receive one, I will update the noble and gallant Lord accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed. We come now to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Social Mobility
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social mobility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to levelling up opportunity across the country. The £1 billion catch-up package announced on 19 June is designed to tackle the impact of lost teaching time. Included in the package is a national tutoring programme worth £350 million to increase access to high-quality tuition for the most disadvantaged young people. This will help to accelerate their progress and prevent any widening of the gap between them and their more affluent peers.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware that, before Covid-19, research by the Social Mobility Commission and others pointed out the barriers to social mobility in Britain. Covid-19 has now resulted in school closures and greater unemployment, as well as other damaging effects. Why does the Minister think that measures aimed at improving social mobility in the past have failed and how will the Government deal with the extra challenges of Covid-19?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, it is obviously not yet possible to know the full impact of the pandemic on social mobility in this country. However, since 2010, the attainment gap between pupils on free school meals and their counterparts has been narrowing. The £1 billion catch-up package is significant and, as I said, will hopefully help to ensure that we do not see the gap widening.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, the Association of Colleges’ summer survey, published yesterday, indicates that three out of four colleges require additional resources to provide free college meal vouchers to eligible students over the summer. In my diocese, 52% of students at City College Southampton receive free college meals. We welcome the £96 million of ring-fenced funding announced yesterday for all 16 to 19 providers to supply additional catch-up tutoring. Will the Minister say how the Government will support colleges to ensure that all eligible students receive free college meals over the summer?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has stolen my thunder. We have indeed announced a £96 million package to support the FE sector, and we recognise that more than 200,000 16 year-olds are educated in that sector. The Social Mobility Commission commended the discretionary bursary funding that is available for disadvantaged students attending FE colleges, which should go some way to helping those students.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is nothing more important to social mobility than education, and now Covid has caused a generation of children to miss months of school, affecting their life chances. That is especially true for those who have exams next year. Does the Minister not agree that we should be mobilising an army of volunteers to help teach in summer schools?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, along with the catch-up package, it was announced that schools will be equipped with Teach First summer school resources and that £7 million will go towards holiday activities and clubs. However, my noble friend is correct in what she said about students taking exams next year. That is why disadvantaged year 10 students are among those who will be provided with one of the 200,000 laptops we have had delivered.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is the Minister aware that if we do not extend the ban on evictions beyond 23 August, we will have an enormous amount of downward social mobility, with children and their parents moving into poverty, homelessness and fecklessness? I would like to see all the departments working together to stop hundreds and thousands of children falling into homelessness and having their futures destroyed.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that Covid recovery is of course a cross-government priority. In relation to housing matters, he will be aware that the working families tax credit was increased by an additional £1,000 and that changes were made to local housing allowances during this period.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]
Can I take the Minister back to her answer to my noble friend Lady Massey’s supplementary question? Does she or does she not accept that decline in social mobility predates Covid-19? Though the epidemic has exacerbated problems, too many young people were already facing a life of insecure and low-paid work as a result of years of austerity and a lack of focus on issues of inequality in our education and social security systems. Does she accept that blame should not be laid entirely on the pandemic and that government policy must also take its share?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the quality of employment for young people has been a priority for this Government. That is why we have seen the development of high-quality apprenticeships and £2,000 additional funding, of which the noble Baroness will be aware, for each young person who is taken on to an apprenticeship after 1 August this year, for a limited period of time. I referenced the attainment gap, which is more of an academic measure. However, there are improvements in social mobility when one looks at, for instance, the number of disadvantaged students going on to university. However, we strive for greater and more dynamic social mobility in this country.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, we know that the early years are a crucial stage for social mobility, with the poorest children already 11 months behind their better-off peers when they start school. Recent work by the Sutton Trust on the impact of Covid has shown that one-third of early years providers in the most disadvantaged areas may have to close within a year, and that almost 70% of settings anticipate operating at a loss over the next six months. Given this, will the Minister say what plans the Government have to introduce a package of support for early years providers in the coming months, including an increase to the early years pupil premium for at least the next year?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the education sector is made up of a number of different types of providers, and early years providers are businesses, except for the maintained nursery sector. I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that, yesterday evening, the Government announced that the early years entitlement of £3.6 billion a year will be paid in the autumn term, regardless of the number of disadvantaged 2 year-olds, or 3 and 4 year-olds, who are attending. That is a massive plank of financial support for the sector going forward in what are, unfortunately, uncertain times.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, every child from whatever background needs to be furnished with the tools to make a success of their life, whether that be through further education or going straight into employment from school. This Government have made a commitment to levelling up society. To help fulfil this agenda and to increase social mobility, does my noble friend agree that apprenticeships remain a route to assist young people to be introduced to the workplace, providing them with the necessary skills and training that will help them on the ladder and opening up future opportunities? What plans do the Government have to ensure that apprenticeships are a realistic option for our young people in this challenging Covid environment?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, apprenticeships are indeed a valuable opportunity for many young people. The ASK programme—apprenticeship support and knowledge—equips teachers to make sure that young people are aware of these opportunities. The funding I have outlined is in addition to the £1,000 already given to employers to take on apprentices who are aged 16 to 18 or are under 25 with an EHC plan. During the crisis, their training has been made flexible so that it can be done remotely, and we have encouraged employers to furlough apprentices when they can.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests. The Minister will know that the most recent Social Mobility Commission audit found that the Government had not done enough to help disadvantaged 16 to 19 year-olds with a student premium or to help the poorest into post-school training. Will Ministers now reverse cuts to further education colleges and act to increase participation in adult education? What steps will they take to ensure that, post Covid, low-income, working-class households will get fairer access to higher education?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, as part of the skills recovery package, the Chancellor announced £100 million to support young people who want a high-value level 2 or 3 qualification where there might not be employment opportunities. FE capital is part of the “build, build, build” response to the recovery. A White Paper in the autumn will outline this Government’s priority to have an FE sector that is no longer the Cinderella of the higher education sector.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Childcare Sector
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the childcare sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the preschool sector plays a vital role in educating our youngest children. We understand that this is a challenging time for many businesses and we will continue to ensure that early years providers get the best possible support from the Government’s support schemes. We will continue to work closely with local authorities and the early years sector organisations to monitor the impact of the pandemic and on any further support measures required.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for the Answer, but it will not address the fundamental problem of underfunding in the childcare sector, which was on its knees before Covid. The early years entitlement covers only a fraction of the actual cost. If we want mothers and fathers to play their part in the recovery, we must pay the childcare sector fairly and properly, otherwise the recovery and the development of many children will be damaged. What can the Government do to stop this disaster unfolding?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, in addition to what I outlined about the early years entitlement continuing to be paid in the autumn term of this year, many of these businesses have been able to take advantage of the various schemes that have been offered, such as the job retention scheme and the business interruption loans. If a furloughed worker in an early years setting is still in employment in January next year, they will of course also be eligible for the £1,000 bonus. Substantial support is going into these businesses, which we recognise are more often than not small businesses.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
I was pleased to hear my noble friend refer to the early years entitlement scheme. Are the Government happy that this amount will be sufficient, when many early years providers will have a significantly reduced demand for a period while people come back to attending early years provision? Will this entitlement be sufficient to keep organisations and facilities in deprived areas operating?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, we have seen a welcome increase in the standard of early years provision over recent years, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Some 96% are good or outstanding. As I outlined in my Answer, we are monitoring the situation closely to look at what support the sector needs, but many grants have been available. If an early years provider was in receipt of small business rate relief or rural rate relief, they were entitled to a £10,000 business grant. We recognise that we need to respond to each part of the education sector differently, but we are monitoring the situation to make sure that we have the latest information on the viability of this sector.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister might possibly be aware of a view given by Caroline Nokes MP, who I think spoke for a lot of people. She said that the Government’s reaction to Covid
“is a recovery designed by men, for men, and it’s not giving the answers families need.”
I feel, as a male of the species, that I am allowed to say that. I point to a recent report by a very distinguished prominent woman, Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England, and her “Best Beginnings” strategy, which has just been produced. What is the Government’s initial reaction to it? When do they expect to give a comprehensive response to it?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I do not recognise the outline of the response that the noble Lord gave. The Government’s response to the pandemic has been comprehensive and they are responding sector by sector to the various needs. The department works closely with the Children’s Commissioner. I am sure that the Secretary of State will respond to her report in due course.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the absolutely critical role of early years education, particularly for the poorest children, why are early years providers being excluded from the Government’s catch-up funding programme?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, children in reception will be part of that catch-up provision. Every year there is a £60 million supplementary grant to the 389 maintained nursery schools. As I outlined in response to other noble Lords’ questions, the education sector is made up of very different types of providers. Early years providers are one type of provider and are businesses. We have responded to the different sectors appropriately. Schools are funded purely by the taxpayer; higher education is another different type of structure. Unfortunately, the response to education institutions is not one size fits all, so things that are available to one set of institutions might not be appropriate for others.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is quite clear that there has been a greater degree of difficulty in areas of social deprivation when it comes to early years. A higher number of institutions have not opened and a higher percentage expect to close. Do the Government have a coherent strategy about how to get effective early years provision into deprived parts of the country?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, as I have outlined, the quantity and quality of provision in disadvantaged areas have been improving. Many of the maintained nursery schools that I mentioned are in areas of disadvantage. We have specifically funded £20 million of career development for early years providers in disadvantaged areas. I hope that the Government’s response to make sure that places were open in early years provision and in schools to vulnerable children and those of critical care workers will bear fruit for those children.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister has put parents in an impossible position by urging a return to work over the summer while failing to provide adequate support for childcare. [Inaudible] Working mothers will suffer particularly badly from the Government’s inaction. [Inaudible] Notwithstanding the early years entitlement continuation mentioned by the Minister, why have the Government not announced any additional funding targeting childcare providers since the onset of the pandemic?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am grateful for early notification of the noble Lord’s question because I had slight trouble hearing it. As I outlined, numerous support schemes have been available to this sector, which, as I said, is a number of small businesses. As of next month, the early years sector will be eligible for the kickstart fund, which is for paid provision of jobs for young people who might be at risk of being unemployed. The apprenticeship support that I outlined is also available for the early years sector. However, the major schemes that have been available to and taken up by the sector have been the business interruption loans, the job retention scheme, the bonus and other financial support that I outlined. These are businesses, so we have responded appropriately for the sector.
Lord Hayward (Con) [V]
My Lords, can I take my noble friend to the other section of children in care: the group that is, by definition, among the most vulnerable in society? All the indications are that the pandemic means that they will be the hardest hit as they leave care. What special measures and funds will the Government provide to help this group?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Government have a care leavers covenant for those young people, recognising that they are some of the most vulnerable children in our society. We have asked universities that accommodate somebody who has been in care to maintain that accommodation during the pandemic. Care leavers have been eligible to receive remote assistance with learning with a laptop. There is a co-ordinated response. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the fact that care leavers can be, and often are, some of the most vulnerable. When they are in the care system, they obviously attract the pupil premium and additional funding.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, 4 million children already live in poverty in the UK. Another 1.7 million children live in households with debt problems. While the pandemic affects all sectors of the country, it seems that children suffer the most. Does the Minister agree that priority should be given to the children’s sector to provide whatever funds are required for the welfare of children?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, some of the additional support that is being given through the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department for Education has also given £3.6 million of early years disadvantage grants to try to support language and other development for those young people. We are aware of children in the poorest households. That is why free school meals have been made available during each of the school holidays during the pandemic.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed.
Telecommunications Legislation: Human Rights
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following their announcement about the involvement of Huawei in UK telecommunications, what steps they are taking to include a human rights threshold in telecommunications legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we want respect for human rights to be at the centre of all business that takes place in this country. As I said on Report of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, we are committed to bringing back the matter of human rights and modern slavery at Third Reading. The Government are also taking action to ensure the security and resilience of our telecoms networks, with our recent announcement on Huawei and work to develop the telecoms security Bill.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to watch the video recording I sent her last Wednesday, which appears to show shackled and blindfolded Uighur Muslims in China being led from trains to camps? The Board of Deputies of British Jews has stated:
“The World will neither forgive nor forget a genocide against the Uighur people.”
The Foreign Secretary has said that this is,
“reminiscent of something not seen for a long time.”
What progress has the Minister made in pursing my request to ask British Telecom how it verifies Huawei’s denials of the use of slave labour or the use of Huawei technology in oppressing Uighur people?
Baroness Barran
It is impossible to have watched the footage to which the noble Lord referred without a sense of horror and deep concern. As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said in answer to an earlier Question, the Government will not look away from human rights abuses in Xinjiang. We are working actively with the Home Office and the Public Bill Office to work out what can be within scope for an amendment on the issues the noble Lord raises about the supply chain.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when the Minister comes back at Third Reading on the telecommunications Bill with an amendment, will she bear in mind that although the Government have taken action to exclude Huawei from the 5G work we still need a human rights threshold in order to exert leverage on China to change its current appalling human rights practices, including forced organ harvesting?
Baroness Barran
The Government have been very clear. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday used the term “gross human rights abuses.” We will pursue a number of avenues on this because human rights clearly do not apply purely in the telecoms supply chain, but much more widely.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I gently remind noble Lords to keep their questions and contributions brief so that we can get as many in as possible.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, human rights should be integrated in all UK trade policy, not just telecoms. What work are Her Majesty’s Government doing on this?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord is right. They absolutely should be in all trade policy. Announcements were made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We are also doing a great deal of work on the modern slavery legislation. A consultation is out at the moment about modern slavery and the supply chain, and the Home Office will report on that later this summer.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I was privileged to speak recently with Nathan Law, the Hong Kong democracy campaigner. Given his assertion that companies such as Huawei serve the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, and that we know from the footage at the weekend that that includes the reported use of slave labour in concentration camps, does my noble friend agree with Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, that
“The World will neither forgive nor forget a genocide against the Uighur people”?
What more can we do to stop this genocide?
Baroness Barran
We have been very clear about the level of concern about human rights abuses of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province. We have recently announced important new moves on extradition and arms sales in relation to Hong Kong, and we continue to be at the forefront of raising these issues in multilateral organisations, including the UN Human Rights Council, most recently at the end of June.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when the Secretary of State announced a change in Huawei’s status last week he also said that full-fibre and older networks will be treated differently from 5G in terms of their technology, security and vendors. Will the Minister expand on the remit and timetable of the consultation that the Secretary of State announced? Will she undertake to ensure that vendors’ human rights positions will be part of that consultation?
Baroness Barran
The remit of the full-fibre broadband operators to which the noble Lord refers has been defined as a short technical consultation to understand what alternatives there are in the supply chain to balance the risk of delay and an unwise reliance on a single provider.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the widespread reports of the Chinese authorities forcing members of the Uighur community into forced labour in the Xinjiang region, including in the manufacture of masks and PPE, can my noble friend tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the risk that any of the United Kingdom’s or UK-based companies’ supply chains could include products manufactured using forced labour? What guidance has been given to UK companies in this regard? Are the Government considering mirroring the sanctions that the US has recently imposed on Chinese companies allegedly involved in the abhorrent abuse of human rights?
Baroness Barran
The Government share my noble friend’s abhorrence at this kind of abuse of human rights. We have led the way with our modern slavery legislation. Some 16,000 companies a year now make modern slavery statements, but we are also aware, as is my noble friend, of how hard it is to track abuses through the supply chain. We have set out a clear modern slavery assessment tool and regularly direct companies to the overseas business risk guidance when they consider operating in areas where human rights abuses are alleged.
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the absolute denial by the Chinese ambassador on Sunday of the fact that millions of members of the Chinese minorities are being deprived of their fundamental human rights in Xinjiang, can the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will seek evidence of compliance with international human rights law by China before Huawei is afforded any further opportunities for trade with the United Kingdom?
Baroness Barran
The decisions on Huawei’s place in the 5G network were driven by security considerations. As a Government, we clearly have multiple responsibilities, of which national security comes highest. The advice we received from the National Cyber Security Centre changed and therefore our policy has changed.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Secretary of State said last week that the Government have a clear and ambitious diversification strategy to replace Huawei. On closer inspection, that rather appears to be based on persuading the existing suppliers, Nokia and Ericsson, to step up and hoping that Samsung and NEC will get involved. Given our world-leading creative industries, can the Minister list which British companies have been approached?
Baroness Barran
I fear I cannot list the British companies but I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord. I am not sure whether that information is in the public domain. However, I reassure him that my honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure is actively working on this as we speak.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a regime that is contemptuous of the human rights of its own citizens and of international standards of human rights will have no restraint about abusing the human rights of UK citizens or persons resident in the UK who may have fled from that regime when it has access to telecommunications systems as a means of doing so?
Baroness Barran
I understand the noble Lord’s point but we work very closely with GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre and take significant advice on how we can protect our citizens. We keep that under constant review.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. 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.
Knife Crime
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statistical bulletin by the Office for National Statistics Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2020, published on 17 July, which reported that the incidence of knife crime is at a record high, what action they are taking to address the rise of knife crime in England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are taking urgent action to tackle knife crime, which is costing too many lives and leaving too many people afraid. Police funding is increasing by more than £1 billion this year. We are recruiting 20,000 more police officers and making it easier for them to use stop and search, and we are ensuring that more knife crime offenders go to prison for longer.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. We need a much more ambitious approach so that, in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, swords are turned into ploughshares or—to put it into modern language—knives are turned into tools to capture the passion and energy of these young people whose lives are being blighted at the very point when we need their contribution more than ever. Will Her Majesty’s Government commit to a public health approach to this problem, encompassing reducing poverty, increasing youth services and strengthening community policing?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I say to the right reverend Prelate that that is the only way to go. Knife crime problems are not caused by any one source and there is no magic area where we can deploy interventions. It has got to be a multiagency, public health approach, as the right reverend Prelate says.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood of Green. Lord Young? I will move on to the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, whatever is happening now, it is clearly not working. Research by the College of Policing shows that high levels of stop and search had barely any effect on violent crime. Instead, it can destroy trust and confidence in the police among the very community that the police need active support and co-operation from if they are to be effective in tackling knife crime. Will the Government consider bringing together police leaders and community leaders to discuss a way forward?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Home Secretary already meets policing leaders and other stakeholders on tackling crime. On the noble Lord’s first point, safeguards are in place to ensure that stop and search is used lawfully and not based on race or ethnicity. On his point about the increase in knife crime and the link to stop and search, I can say—and this is not a defensive point—that the rate of increase has slowed. However, I agree that we have so much further to go, and that working together across different departments and with different stakeholders is absolutely right.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, it has just been said that stop and search is an important part of the police system for dealing with this matter. Is there anything that can be done to remove the fact that its use appears to be strongly biased against black people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble and learned friend is right that it appears to be used disproportionately towards black and Asian young people. Of course, they are quite often the victims in all this. It is important to add—I think I have already said it—that no one should be stopped and searched based on their race or ethnicity. The Metropolitan Police is quite sure that its increase in stop and search has helped stem knife crime injuries to under-25s, although the figures are just not good enough yet. The Home Office collects more data now on stop and search than ever before, including the race of the person searched and what they were searched for.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
My Lords, I feel sure that the Minister shares my concern about the reports of very young people carrying knives, even on their way to school, because they feel afraid and may need to defend themselves. During the last decade, there has been a marked reduction in family support and preventive services. Does the Minister agree that we must now do all that we can to recover effective joint working by the key services at a very local level, including youth services, in order to regain community support, especially for vulnerable young people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will know that I agree with him because I have agreed with him for many years on this. Family support is crucial. Through the troubled families programme we had that type of multiagency support for families. It is an absolute tragedy that very young people are carrying knives. They do so because they feel like victims; ultimately, they may become perpetrators, but at the heart of this, they are victims. That is why the multiagency approach is at the heart of the type of intervention and prevention we are taking forward.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We know that the Home Secretary speaks to police chiefs every day. When she talks to them about the increase in knife crime, as she must do, what are the police chiefs telling the Government are the reasons for the national increase in knife crime? What action do they consider needs to be taken, and by whom, to address this issue and bring the knife crime figure down?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I know that the noble Lord will understand that I will not relay details of operational conversations. However, I will quote a Member of Your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who said that while the factors are multifaceted, one thing he is clear about is the rise in the demand from the drugs markets. While not directly related to it, some of the work that the NCA did the other week in taking drugs and weapons out of circulation will undoubtedly have eased some of the problems that our young people face.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I know the impacts such crimes have. On 28 January 2000, I was one of the victims of a sword attack in my MP’s constituency office, in which my colleague died. These latest figures show that the Government need a new policy. Will they get those who have turned their lives round after wasting time in prison for knife crime—and who kids can relate to—into schools to convince them to bin their knives?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I very well remember the moment to which the noble Lord refers, which must have left lasting scars for all those involved. Last week, we brought forward in a statutory instrument a compensation scheme for certain offensive weapons. I think that the noble Lord’s wife is behind him, making sure that he says the right thing—I have now lost my track. We have had several knife amnesties over the years. Children need to feel supported in binning the knife and in not carrying knives, as opposed to feeling penalised. I think that that is what the noble Lord’s question stems from.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
The recent knife crime figures released by the Office for National Statistics are extremely worrying. We know that hundreds of dedicated and amazing individuals and hard-working organisations deliver excellent initiatives and projects to try to prevent and reduce knife crime across the country. Yet, as is obvious from the figures, with the increased demand on them, these organisations are not able to make the impact we all need. Should we not identify the most successful ones and invest more money in scaling them up? Is it time to review the amount of money allocated and where the money is spent in trying to combat this dreadful knife crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally agree with my noble friend that we should indeed learn from successes. There are pockets of very good practice all over the country. We do not always have the magic formula to know what the most successful intervention will be. However, our analysis, which was set out in the Serious Violence Strategy, makes it clear that there is a very complex interplay of different factors driving serious violence. It is therefore especially difficult to isolate specifics, but we are definitely sure that prevention and early intervention are key. They are the things that we are investing in, particularly in youth services, and our recruitment of additional police officers will of course help to that end.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, England and Wales lost more than 20,000 police officers between March 2010 and March 2019. I have spoken several times, requesting the Government to increase police officer numbers by 20,000. Eventually, almost exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister said that the target is to recruit 20,000 new police officers in England and Wales, as the Minister has said. He said that this would be achieved within three years through a new national policing board. How far have we progressed in achieving this target and will we recruit the 20,000 police officers who are desperately needed to address the highest incidence of knife crime in nine years, as the right reverend Prelate stated upfront?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can quite confidently say yes, we will. We are already not far off that 6,000 figure, and that is in only the first year. Although I confidently told the House the other week that we had reached 6,000, I think that we are at about 4,500 now. In a climate of difficult economic circumstances, I am sure that such a great career will be even more attractive now.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her positive responses to these questions. I add that the academics Stephen Case and Kevin Haines offer a perspective on knife crime with which I think the Government might very well engage. As they and others assert, children and young people need positive, nurturing environments and effective youth services. Communities need positive services and activities for young people, but local authorities, which have been hollowed out through years of cuts, lack the resources to provide these. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that funds are made available to our local authorities to build back better in our local youth services?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiment. It is of course up to local authorities where they deploy their finances, but I get her sentiment. On investing in youth services, the Home Office invested £22 million in an early intervention youth fund a couple of years ago. The Home Office’s Youth Endowment Fund of £200 million runs over 10 years and the Youth Investment Fund of £500 million runs over five years to do just the types of things that she talks about.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, one of the early interventions that has been shown to be very effective is sport. Young people belonging to sporting teams, rather than gangs, can turn their lives around. Will my noble friend the Minister commit to encouraging more charities and sports organisations to create after-school clubs and other community clubs where these young people can belong to positive teams, rather than gangs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I most wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. I can even cite examples, although I will not at the Dispatch Box, where I have seen people whose lives have literally been turned around by their engagement in sport, rather than activity that will lead to a life of crime.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for the Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 21st 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-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (21 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 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.
I remind noble Lords 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.
Clause 4: Multi-annual financial assistance plans
Amendment 130
Lord Teverson
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I shall speak also to Amendment 142. Both these amendments relate to reducing the transition period for the introduction of ELMS from seven years to five years. I suspect that Members are probably not that keen on the idea at the moment, so for the next couple of minutes I intend to try to persuade them otherwise, because it is important that we reduce the transition period.
Members and indeed the country as a whole are aware of COP 26 this year which was supposed to take place in Glasgow concerning the climate change agreement and getting the Paris agreement carried forward in a positive way to meet our planetary carbon emissions targets, but many people are not so aware of a second major conference, COP 15, about the diversity convention. It was supposed to take place this year in Kunming, China but it has also been postponed until next year.
Biodiversity is a global crisis equal to climate change. Biodiversity is not just a problem of equatorial rainforests; it is a problem in Europe and here in the United Kingdom as well. The 2019 State of Nature report states that
“15% of species in the UK are now threatened by extinction,”
41% are in decline and a third remain effectively static, with only a small proportion gaining in number. Biodiversity is not just about bird spotters or twitchers and a comfortable feeling about nature, important though it is for our mental health and the energy of our countryside. It is also about supporting natural systems and allowing them to operate—ecosystem services such as pollination, soil formation, clean water, atmospheric oxygen, disease control and many more. All these are essential not only to the natural world around us but to our economic performance and indeed to our continued existence on this planet.
One of the great things that I have always praised in the Agriculture Bill is the idea not just of public money for public goods but that it should be concentrated on building up and improving biodiversity and nature in our countryside. That is important because about 70% of the land in England and across the UK is used in agriculture. However, I regret to say that it is because of agricultural management that biodiversity in this country has declined so significantly. I do not blame the farming industry and individual farmers for that, but I do blame the financial incentive system within which they have had to operate.
Why am I asking for the transition period to be reduced from seven to five years? It is because the biodiversity issue is a global crisis as well as one here in the United Kingdom. If we take no action and carry on with business as usual, economic systems will fail. At the end of seven years, we will be almost half way through the period of the 25-year environment plan, which I also welcome, although it must be properly financed and delivered.
It may sound trite, but I remind noble Lords that the Second World War lasted for a mere six years and we managed to overcome all the problems and challenges that affected us globally within that time. At the moment we are in a transition period, moving from being a member of the EU to our global position in just 11 months, with all the challenges that that poses, so surely we can manage to implement ELMS over five years rather than seven. I also remind noble Lords that, on nature depletion, the United Kingdom is not in a good position. We ranked 29th from the bottom out of 218 countries. That is why this issue is so important. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is the illustrious chairman of our EU sub-committee. For the record, however, I would like the transition period to remain as it is.
I want to speak to Amendment 143, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for lending their support. It is a simple amendment, which would delay the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments coming into effect from 2021 to 2022. I should like to pause here to explain why this is necessary.
In seeking to delay the start of the transition period to the new policy framework to 2022, I accept that there is wide support across the House for the government objectives in the Bill to move towards a new framework of support for agriculture that focuses on public payments for public goods and increasing productivity. Much of the detail will be set out in supporting regulations and in the Environment Bill, of which we in this House have not yet had sight. However, the changes being envisaged will be the biggest in a generation and look set to be in place for many years to come.
I accept that we are leaving the European Union but note with regret that, in the four years since the vote in June 2016 signalled the beginning of a process of change, particularly in leaving the CAP, we have made very little progress in developing the necessary mechanisms, policies and schemes that would be worthy of the major changes that we are expecting in this Bill. I accept that much of this is down to the political impasse leading up to the last general election and, more recently, to the pressing issues around controlling Covid-19, which I am sure have affected Defra as they have many other departments.
It is essential that we take the time to introduce new schemes and measures that will stand the test of time, rather than simply bringing them in quickly for the sake of it. I fear that there is an overarching desire through the Bill to show that things have changed as a result of our departure from the European Union, rather than to ensure that we put in place good, made-for-purpose, fit-for-purpose, resilient schemes. Let us face it: our track record in delivering new schemes and new IT to support them is not that great.
Following the environmental land management scheme tests and trials, which themselves have been impacted by the issues surrounding Covid-19 and are ultimately delayed, the Government intend to conduct a pilot in England of a new ELM scheme in 2021, with a view to it being fully operational by 2024. However, if it is true that the Rural Payments Agency will be in charge of running these pilots—I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest on that—we have to question its capacity to run such a pilot when it is already struggling to deliver business as usual. Once again this year, the RPA has had to ask the Treasury for funding to bridge payments to environmental stewardship and countryside stewardship applicants before being penalised for failing to meet the required payment targets by 30 June this year. What reassurance can the Government provide that there is adequate capacity within the RPA to deliver the pilot, or does my noble friend think that another body would be more appropriate?
I also place a question mark on the extent to which the Government would be able to spend any money saved through the reductions in direct payments starting in 2021. I understand that Defra has identified this as a potential problem and is therefore looking to make an announcement in September about enhanced options for countryside stewardship and productivity schemes. However, we have none of the detail available to us today. In my view, the sensible thing is to delay the start of the transition period until 2022. That is not kicking the can down the road but giving the Government and Defra the time and space to deliver the good schemes that we know they are capable of, rather than producing half-baked schemes.
The reasons for this delay are these: we are being asked to take a lot on trust; we have not had sight of the Dimbleby food strategy, which I understand will not reach us before Report; we have not had the results of the trials of the ELM schemes; the OEP has yet to be set up; and we do not know what its relationship to the Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA will be. We owe it to Defra to give it time, because of the Covid pandemic, to reach a proper conclusion to these schemes. I therefore ask the House to commit to supporting Amendment 143.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose analysis I almost completely agree with, although my conclusion is a little different. I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register, and that I have been a recipient of the basic payment over several years.
I tabled Amendment 144, to which my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 145 in order to address the problem of the likely gap that will affect farmers as direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenue from the joining of any new environmental land management schemes will not arrive until 2024—although this will be mitigated for some farmers who have existing countryside stewardship schemes. This is no small issue. As we have heard in the debates on the Bill, the BPS accounts for some 58% of farm business income, varying from sector to sector, and around 25% of farms are unprofitable without it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, there are two strands of amendments in this group: those that probe the Government on the agricultural transition period, such as Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh; and others, such as my Amendments 147, 148 and 154, that would prevent secondary legislation that would undermine animal welfare.
As other noble Lords have said, the agricultural transition period needs probing to understand what the Government’s current position is. The Bill has been floating around for a long time, but there is still no real detail in it, which is very frustrating for us who have to comment on it. On the one hand, I am very swayed by the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The transition period should probably be as short as possible, simply because we can then move rapidly to a new system of public money for public good. I also do not particularly want to give the Government a lot of time to delay the big, tough decisions they will have to make, but they of course have to give farmers and land managers the time to adapt and improve. Overall, we need the certainty that comes from the Government setting out their plans very clearly. I hope the Minister can set out a timetable for that happening.
The second strand of this group is my amendments which, like so many of my amendments, seek to protect animal welfare. Clauses 9 and 14 grant very broad power to the Secretary of State in what might be termed cost cutting and corner cutting. The clauses should be scrutinised on their own and the Government should make it clear what they plan to use them for to justify their existence. My amendments would prevent the Government cutting these corners for animal welfare so that the Secretary of State cannot simply say, “That’s rather expensive for animals. Let’s see if we can improve on that and cut the cost.” There are probably a dozen other issues that should be added to the list of things that these clauses should not be allowed to tamper with, but for me, animal welfare stands out as a priority.
I hope other noble Lords will join me in their concern about Clauses 9 and 14. We might work together in bringing amendments on Report to curtail these cost-cutting and corner-cutting powers.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as before, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. During the many days of this Committee a considerable number of thoughtful and constructive amendments have been tabled, but in most cases the Government have suggested that they are unnecessary since the matter is already covered in Clause 1 or can be provided for in the new environmental land management scheme. However, the ELMS will not begin until 2024. During the years between now and then, many farms that are currently barely profitable will suffer or disappear.
I will speak to my Amendment 149. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for signing it as well. As I said at Second Reading, my real concern is for the very survival of smaller hill farms during the intervening years from now until the new ELM payments begin in 2024. The Government announced in February that farmers in the lowest band of basic direct payments—up to £30,000 per annum—would have their payment cut by 5% in 2021, with further cuts in the following years. However, the Government’s own figures for 2018-19—the latest available—show that the average cattle and sheep farmer in a less-favoured area received a direct basic payment of £24,000 and still made a profit of only £15,500. Figures for 2019-20, when available, will probably show a slightly better position. Nevertheless, these smaller hill farms are only marginally profitable even with the basic payment and would be commercially totally unviable without taxpayer support.
We all accept that we are moving away from the basic payment system to the new environmental land management scheme payments. The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to think again about whether it is sensible or fair to reduce those in the lowest band even by 5% before ELMS payments kick in in 2024.
On Tuesday two weeks ago we debated Amendment 78 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Greaves. Their amendment urged the Government to maintain support for hill farms and other marginal land. I support this general principle. My amendment is more specific and asks the Government simply to protect just the lowest band of recipients from the cuts until the new payment systems come into play.
Last Thursday, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, stated that since small abattoirs operate on a commercial basis they would not fit into the principle of the public good. My contention is that, unfortunately, small hill farms are not in any way commercial on their own, so I believe the public will consider it more than just for taxpayers’ money to be given for the public good of maintaining our small hill farms, which play such an important part in so many rural communities in this country. When the Minister responds to this group of amendments, I hope he will give the Committee an assurance that the Government will look again at the timing and percentage of the reductions in the basic payments for small farmers in the uplands.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of a tenant farming enterprise as set out in the register. I shall speak to my Amendments 150 to 153. Although there is an understandable desire to demonstrate that we are moving away from the old regime of the CAP, we must do so in a way that is effective rather than just quick. The delay in our exit from the EU and the implications of Covid-19 point to a possible delay in the implementation of this new policy framework. These amendments would allow greater flexibility in pausing or even reversing the phasing out of direct payments should, and only should, circumstances require it. This would be particularly important in a scenario where payments to farmers had been reduced but where the funds freed up had not been spent on alternative programmes and remained unused.
Amendment 150 would allow Ministers to reverse reductions in direct payments if they were found to be having a detrimental impact on the nation’s ability to produce food. The Covid-19 crisis will have long-term implications for our country, so this amendment would allow for welcome flexibility. UK consumers, who have valued the domestic supply of food over recent times like never before, will not welcome any dip in that supply. In the event of a pause or a reversal for these reasons, the Government should be allowed to maintain independent financing for the development of alternative schemes, such as ELMS, so that they are not delayed or interrupted.
My Amendment 152 would enable those who have opted to take delinked payments to return to receiving direct payments if the direct payment scheme is extended. If a delinked payment is introduced, the powers to extend the transition period in accordance with Section 8(3) will be used. The status of the farmer would be uncertain. He may be locked out of the system for longer than envisaged. The status of such a person in this situation should be defined in the regulations to provide legal certainty. Given the current uncertainty about what future schemes will look like, this amendment would provide a safeguard against unintended consequences for farmers if the agricultural transition period is extended.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Committee has already heard some powerful speeches. The more the Bill is discussed, the more respect I have for farmers who, in a time of uncertainty, have a future that is even more uncertain than the present. We do not know where ELMS is going; we have not discussed the Environment Bill. We are threatened with ELMS being run by the RPA, whose record we cannot respect hugely. Farmers are, therefore, in a difficult position. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said last week, the advice he has received is to stop all investment. That is a terrible situation to be in at this time. Our farmers should be investing but, in the uncertain world we are faced with, the right thing for them to do is sit on their hands. That is going to cause huge problems. I agree with noble Lords who have said that small farmers, particularly hill farmers, face the most problems and are most likely to fall by the wayside as the current situation continues.
I have put my name to Amendment 143, which would delay the process of implementing ELMS for another year. Given what has been said, there is nothing for me to add, except that I support the principle of all the amendments that have been spoken to. I hope that the Government will show some flexibility on these, because the current situation is untenable for quite a number of farmers.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 143, to which I have put my name. I too have very real concerns that Defra will simply not be ready for the transition period to begin in 2021 and that farming will suffer as a result. To provide the Government and farmers with sufficient time to prepare for transition, we should start it in 2022, rather than 2021. This way, we can ameliorate the transition chasm that I have discussed before. The House has spent four long days in Committee, debating many variations of ELMS, and has made its way through Clauses 1 and 2 of the 54-clause Bill. We hope to rush through the bulk of this legislation in another two days, under huge time pressure. Scrutiny cannot be sufficient in these circumstances and major aspects of this crucial legislation will be barely considered.
The Government have suggested that time is of the essence and that this Bill simply has to be passed so that the transition period can begin on 1 January 2021. They say that farmers will not be able to be paid if it does not. This is simply not true. It was easy for Parliament to extend direct payments to farmers for 2020; we can simply repeat that process. Given that the Government have confirmed that they will maintain the level of agricultural funding until the end of this Parliament, this will have no negative impact on the Treasury or on budgets. What it will do is permit Defra to prepare for ELMS in an orderly manner.
Despite the best efforts of its overstretched and underfunded staff, Defra is transparently far behind where it needs to be. The EFRA Committee took evidence on 16 June 2020 from Defra’s two leads: Tamara Finkelstein, its Permanent Secretary, and David Kennedy, the director-general of food, farming and biosecurity. I recommend the transcript of their evidence to all noble Lords, as it provides a valuable insight into its much-delayed progress. They admit to considerable delays in the tests and trials programme caused first by Brexit, which took many staff for emergency no-deal planning, and then by coronavirus, which meant that many key tests and trial programmes have not begun.
Defra is triaging. For example, it has confirmed that it has abandoned plans to build a new computer system to administer ELMS. Instead, it will be delivered using the current SITI Agri system, which is used by the RPA to administer BPS. Reading between the lines, it appears that tier 1 of ELMS is effectively going to be little more than BPS plus greening obligations by a new name, administered by the same team, using the exact same technology. I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation of this.
On Thursday, the Minister helpfully confirmed that Defra would publish a multiannual financial assistance plan this autumn. Given the incredible delays disclosed by Defra, what details is it really able to provide? Will the Minister confirm whether, but for Brexit meaning Brexit, Defra would prefer to agree to this amendment and give itself longer to prepare for the transition?
I warmly support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also relate to the transition chasm. However, I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. ELMS is optional—the quicker the transition, the less uptake there will be and the worse the outcome for our environment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I fully support Amendment 144, in the name of my noble friend Lord Carrington, to which I was happy to attach my name. I am very concerned about the gap in support as the current basic payment scheme is unwound and access to the new ELM scheme becomes available, as planned, in 2024. As I said at Second Reading, this is fraught with risk. The delays caused by indecision on Brexit and then the impact of coronavirus mean that the ELMS pilots are just under way. Meaningful conclusions will take a couple of years or more to interpret. The design of the schemes, and the value of public goods that we hope will be delivered by this brave new model for supporting the management of the countryside, must be promoted to farmers and land managers with confidence. We need the evidence from the pilots and there is no slack in the timetable to experiment or for systems to fail and be rerun, which is why many of us are deeply concerned about the Government’s reluctance to change the current seven-year transition plan. At Second Reading, I suggested that the Government should be willing to extend the period to eight years.
Under the current plans, there will only be three years by the time the Bill becomes law to draw conclusions from the pilots and then launch the ELM scheme to the entire farming sector. Tens of thousands of family farmers are not prepared for the scale of the change that the Bill will introduce. It is the most fundamental change in support, and the greatest cultural change, that any farmer in Britain today has ever faced. At present, there is no way farmers can prepare for this change because, for obvious reasons, there is no information available on the basis of which they can begin to consider their future plans and make decisions.
This change in policy is a unique opportunity to facilitate restructuring of the sector, but this cannot be rushed. Every farmer needs to consider the impact of the change on their individual business. As a result of the scale of this challenge, it is inevitable that there will be a capacity problem. The quantum of qualified consultants who are trusted and able to provide 30,000 or 40,000 farmers with informed advice in good time to make considered decisions will be an enormous challenge. To ensure that the potential benefits which the ELM scheme can deliver, and which will hopefully be realised, will require careful consideration by each farmer and land manager.
If ELMS is launched in 2024 as planned, there will be a deluge of applications and the capacity of the RPA and Natural England to cope with the volume will be stretched to the limit. The possibility of every farmer who wishes to participate in the ELM scheme being able to do so in 2024 is unrealistic. For all these reasons, the Government need to think very carefully about the timetable. This amendment is designed to help smooth the impact. Limiting the dismantling of support from the BPS to a total reduction of 25% until the ELM scheme is available is a sensible approach.
I restate what I said at Second Reading: I reassure the Minister that I am enthusiastic about this bold change in policy and genuinely believe that we can lead the world in delivering a wide range of crucial outcomes from the management of the countryside, provided that the policy is well designed and land managers are appropriately incentivised. It would be a disaster if such an important change in policy was rushed through and we failed to engage appropriately. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the department will adopt the timetable proposed in this amendment. It would be very much appreciated by farmers and land managers and would ensure a greater chance of achieving the desired outcomes.
Very briefly, I have considerable sympathy with the purpose of Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Smaller livestock family farms, both in LFAs and in the lowlands, are the most vulnerable to these changes. They manage some of the most precious landscapes in Britain and are a crucial part of rural communities. The choice of taking a hard-nosed commercial approach, resulting in many being forced out of business, or a more sympathetic view that would require some special care and support to help those farming businesses adjust to change is a no-brainer, otherwise the impact could be disastrous. The Minister is aware that I chair the Prince’s Countryside Fund. We have supported over 1,000 such farmers through the Prince’s Farm Resilience Programme, with considerable success. It is essential that these crucial farming families are given appropriate support to ensure that they can adapt their businesses, not just to survive but to prosper in this brave new world.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will not detain you long. I have every sympathy with the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to get on with improving our biodiversity. However, I do not think it is feasible to bring this forward from seven to five years, so I am afraid that I cannot support that, however much I am keen for the things that we all hope for to take place.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Caithness. The more I have listened to our proceedings, the more respect I have for farmers—I had a great deal of respect for them before—and I can imagine what it is like facing these changes with all the uncertainty that we have just been talking about. Having been not in farming but in retail for most of my working life, I can imagine the concerns about the future. I would also say, however, that we always work to deadlines. If we extended things, we would be in a similar position, so I cannot support any extension as discussed—very eloquently—by many noble Lords.
I have put my name to Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, principally to emphasise my concerns over any reduction in animal welfare. I have no doubt at all that British farming has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world and I do not think for one minute that that will be negated by anything in the Bill, but I wanted to underline my concerns on that.
Again, I give my support in as far as upland farms, and to some extent some livestock in the lowlands, are some of our most precious guardians of the countryside and are really threatened by some of these measures. I urge the Government to look at this; I am sure that they will.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the last time that I can remember being called to speak by the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker is when she was chairman of Lancashire County Council and I was a somewhat dissident member on the back benches. The reception and politeness that I have found in your Lordships’ House since I came here a long time ago is of an altogether greater level than the shouting and ranting I got in Lancashire County Council from time to time. Noble Lords can decide whether they ought to be a bit more robust when I speak—I do not know.
I spoke in the debate last Thursday afternoon about what I might have said today on this amendment, so I will not repeat it. I was accused of being gloomy by the Minister and one or two other people; I thought I had perhaps gone a bit over the top—in a Lancashire County Council sort of way—until I read Hansard. Having read Hansard, I thought that what I said was rather good, but Hansard sometimes has that effect on what noble Lords say in this Chamber.
I very much support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said this afternoon. I understand the point that my noble friend Lord Teverson and others are making about the need to get on with transforming agriculture and the countryside in this country for ecological reasons and climate change and so on. Nevertheless, the thought that this new, extremely complex, top-down system of working out what people are paid for, with individual assessments of every farm and three tiers that have to be linked together, will be carried out by the Rural Payments Agency fills me with dread. I say to the Government—in a friendly way, because I do want this to succeed—that, in modern parlance, it is a huge car crash rushing over the horizon. We will see. It requires huge resource, effort and ability to introduce large, complex computer-based schemes, which British Governments—not just this Government—are not terribly good at doing. I say no more about it.
I was very pleased indeed to put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Again, the particularly small hill farms are the main concern here. As I said on another amendment, which now seems a long time ago in this Committee, unless these farmers get a considerable amount of subsidy, which not only allows them to do things that are desirable environmentally and for the landscape but to carry out their basic job of hill farming and make at least some profit from it, they will simply go out of business. I do not believe that the Minister and the Government have, so far, explained how such farmers will survive under the new system and continue to do their farming. We all know how the sheep farming system in particular works in this country: the people who rear sheep in the lowlands require the sheep to come down from the hills; it is all pretty integrated. If the hill farms close down and stop keeping their sheep, it will have an effect right across the industry and the country. The most important thing is that the hill farmers themselves get the support they need for their own benefit and the benefit of their communities and landscapes.
Can the Minister explain how the new system will do this, when it is supposed to provide only for what are known as public goods and is not meant to be a production subsidy? I do not see how hill farms can continue unless a significant part of the money they get from public funds is, in effect, a production subsidy, whether or not the Government disguise it as something else.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. It is a pleasure to the follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and in relation to his comments on Hansard, I tell him, and indeed the whole Committee, that I once asked the late Lord Armstrong, who I rate as one of our greatest ever Cabinet Secretaries, “Robert, when you wrote up the Cabinet minutes, did you write what the Minister said or what he thought he had said?” He told me, “Oh, no, David. I wrote what the Minister would have said if he had thought of saying it.” I sometimes wish Hansard would do the same with my speeches.
I oppose the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in that the seven-year period should not be reduced to five. However, he is right to draw attention to the importance of CBD15 next year. It is every bit as important as COP26. Indeed, in a sensible world, there would not be two conventions but one, since they are inextricably linked. Habitat loss leads to more carbon and more zoonotic diseases as animals are forced closer to humans. However, that is not for this Bill. I think Defra has got the seven-year period right, and so has my noble friend Lord Randall; moving the deadline does not necessarily buy us more time.
This is the greatest and most exciting change in British agriculture since 1970. I am old enough to remember those UK White Papers produced by the ministry of ag, fish and food—MAFF, an excellent department, if I may say so—such as Food from Our Own Resources, which exhorted us to “produce, produce, produce”. One of the many excellent things about leaving the EU is that we will once again be able to design plans to produce food from our own resources and protect the environment at the same time. But let us not pretend it will be a simple change. Studies on ELMS are being undertaken, and the three tiers are being designed, but it will be a mega change for UK agriculture.
The EU system of giving every farm money based on acreage is simple, but utterly wrong, yet giving farmers payments for undertaking environmental land management schemes is infinitely more complicated; farmers need time to adjust, and Defra needs time to tweak the schemes. Of course, we want rid of the perverse EU payments system as soon as possible, but I prefer to take seven years and get it right than five years and get it wrong.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggests in Amendment 130 that the period of the first plan should be five years rather than seven years. In Amendment 142, he seeks to reduce the seven-year transition period, during which the direct payments scheme will be phased out, to five years. Farmers are already anxious about how their business models will have to change, and would not welcome the shortening of the transition period. Particularly because they do not have enough information on the new scheme, the noble Lord’s amendment is unwarranted and would be damaging.
However, there is considerable merit in Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in that the seven-year transition period should start 18 months from now, rather than six, which would give more time for the Government to work out the details of the scheme, and would be neutral in terms of costs to the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in Amendment 144, is right to seek to ensure that payments under the new schemes compensate for the reduction in and ultimate removal of payments under the direct payments scheme. But I think his intention to limit the reduction in total support to 25% is rather modest. I believe direct payments for larger farms are set to be reduced by 25% in 2021, and the noble Lord’s amendment would still permit this to happen, even if such a farm receives zero under the countryside stewardship scheme and other current schemes. As I said previously, the larger farming businesses employ the majority of agricultural workers.
I would not support Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, except in so far as it equates to Amendment 143 to delay the changes by one year. The seven-year transition period is not too long, given the extent of the changes farmers will need to carry out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to use this Bill to advance her concerns regarding animal welfare, but I cannot agree with her Amendment 147, which assumes that animal welfare standards are higher or lower, whereas different standards may produce different outcomes, and it is a fine balance. I regret that I do not see the justification for supporting her Amendments 147, 148 or 154.
My noble friend Lady Rock has eloquently explained the reasons behind her Amendments 150 and 151. I can see that where moneys are unspent, the amount provided in a subsequent year might increase if the Government accept carryover procedures. As for her Amendments 152 and 153 on delinked payments, they seem to provide an improvement to the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have christened this group of amendments, “Mind the gap”. We need some sort of rethink from the Government on a safer way forward.
I support Amendment 143. When I first read the Bill in its earliest form, nearly two years ago now, I thought, “That’s good—the seven-year transition from one system to the next. All will be well; farmers can plan ahead with no problems, and while the single farm payment goes down, they can enter into ELM schemes, with profits, under the new regime.” Defra had three years to get ELM schemes in place, then several years to roll them out to farmers on the ground, which, as others have said, is going to be an almost impossible task. I thought, back then, that it could happen at a manageable place, and all would be well. Farmers would be involved in tremendous changes, but they could survive the transition because the way forward would be clear to them.
But now, two years on, the way forward is still as clear as mud. ELMS have only just entered the pilot stage, farmers have no framework by which to plan and they are saying, “What will ELMS look like for me in my area? I have no idea. What training do I need? I have no idea. Do I need to plan for new equipment or facilities? I have no idea.” No one in the farming community has any clear idea of the future. The details of ELMS will not really emerge from the mist until nearly 2025.
In spite of the delays, we still seem to be stuck with a 2021 start to the transition period. This cannot be right. With the rug of the old world being slowly pulled out from under them, and the new rug unlikely to arrive for some time, I worry farmers will fall down the gap. As others have said, the delay is not really Defra’s fault; we had all the shenanigans around Brexit, and so with this Agriculture Bill doing the hokey-cokey—in, out, in, out—then Covid-19 causing genuine paralysis this year, it is not surprising the timetable has slipped. So, the Government have every reason to take this back and think again before we get to Report. I do not care how they do it, but we need something to close the horrible gap that is looming.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an arable farmer and landowner in receipt of BPS. Before I come to the amendments, I want to defend the RPA after the swipe at it by my noble friend Lord Caithness. What he said might have been true some years ago, but I pay tribute to the Minister for its much improved status over recent years, although it will clearly have its work cut out with the new regime.
The Bill establishes a framework for phasing out direct payments over seven years. It is highly likely that payments under the ELM schemes will result in significant reductions in net income, especially for cattle and sheep farmers, whether in less favoured or lowland areas, and delays in its introduction until 2024 will have a serious effect. Hence, I support Amendment 149, in the names of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but would extend it to certain smaller lowland cattle and sheep farmers. I also strongly support Amendment 144, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, believing that interim financial assistance measures need to be given to these sectors of farming in particular.
I do not support Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as he did not really mention the effect it would have on farmers, which could be serious—in fact, I do not think he mentioned farmers at all—but I do support Amendment 143, which proposes a delay in the start of the transition period, and appreciate my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s support, even though he is on the Brexiteer side. I also support the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the lack of detail on the progress of the BPS reduction after year one. I also ask, like my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whether a new set of countryside stewardship schemes will be forthcoming in the autumn.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. Along with others, I agree with Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh: the transition period should begin in 2022 rather than 2021. Equally, the case for being more realistic about timescales, although in a different context, is addressed by my noble friend Lady Rock’s Amendments 151, 152 and 150 respectively. The first would ensure that those entitled to payments receive them within guaranteed periods to achieve certainty of cash flow. The second would, through regulations, offer legal certainty to farmers, otherwise possibly disadvantaged where delinked payments, if introduced, might lead to extended transition periods. The third, Amendment 150, would enable the Secretary of State to increase payments during the transition period, after phasing out had started, to use up any unspent money and, when necessary, to protect the industry from harm.
Corresponding to the pragmatism of the latter proposal is my noble friend Lord Carrington’s useful Amendment 144, ensuring that any cuts in direct payments do not undermine businesses before the new public goods programmes begin. Then, reflecting the purposes and principles of the Bill themselves, there is Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This emphasises the preservation of animal welfare standards, irrespective of financial consequences, while my noble friend the Duke of Wellington’s Amendment 149 would ensure direct payments to smaller livestock farmers in less favoured areas. Since all these contributions would much improve the Bill, I hope the Minister will accept them.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a particularly thoughtful debate, as it should be, because underlying the whole series of amendments being advanced is the recognition that this is, first, a major change in how we approach support for our land and our farming. Coupled with that is concern about how we bring about the change, and concern that the period allowed to bring it about is not flexible enough and may not be of the right length. Various proposals have been argued very eloquently that perhaps it should be a bit shorter—five years instead of seven. I favour a seven-year period, because the challenge is so great that we will not be able to tackle it. There are so many changes, not only in our approach—public money for public goods, instead of just production costs—but against a changing background as it is. I do not think many of us fully appreciate the changes taking place in agriculture at the moment.
I have a particular interest in the uplands and hill farming, but one cannot look at hill farming without looking at the low-level farming that depends on, feeds on and feeds from the upland areas. One has only to drive in the national park, for example, and once one gets on to the low-level farming, there are no longer any cattle, mixed farming or dairy farming: all the sheep are down on the low level 12 months a year, and that is causing problems in itself. So there is the unstable nature of farming to start with, and we then wrestle with the problem of how we make sure that the various aspects of the new legislation are tied together. Is Defra capable of handling such a major change when it is also dealing with Brexit and will face the challenge of pressure from the Treasury, in spite of what the Government may say? Then, from my experience of running the Cabinet Office, I am concerned about the ability of the Government, or any public body, to run major computer programmes. We are not always able to employ the best people, we do not have the experience, yet we take so much for granted when we look at these proposals.
I must admit that when I look at the ideas, I think Amendment 146, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, has some suggestions of a way forward. It suggests a slightly later start date—2022—coupled with some flexibility if we find that even that is too early. It even goes so far as to say that if we find that the seven-year period is not correct, it can be changed by affirmative resolution. I am not sure that I entirely agree with that, but I could be persuaded in an emergency that it is the way forward.
We are right to spend so much time debating this. Unless we get it right, the whole thing will be a disaster and there will be tears of woe, not only from the farming community but from foresters, environmentalists and a whole range of people who love our countryside.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very interesting, thoughtful debate and I associate myself with many of the comments, not least those of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. In normal circumstances, I would agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend, Lord Blencathra, about not extending a deadline, because projects will simply extend to fill the space provided, but we are in extraordinary times, not just because of Covid but because, for the last four years, Defra and much of Whitehall have been able to focus only on one piece of wildlife, that being Yellowhammer.
Yesterday was Report on the Business and Planning Bill. In our deliberations, it became clear that emergency legislation needs to be passed in various situations and circumstances which will run to September 2021. In light of that, it seems logical and coherent across government policy that a move regarding the start of the transition period, from 2021 to 2022, would dovetail very much with that same legislative logic. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
I also very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. If legislation means anything, it must mean that it touches on those in the greatest need. I believe that my noble friend’s amendment very much goes to the point of covering those who fundamentally understand and deliver on stewardship, guardianship, public good and, indeed, equity. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
Finally, will my noble friend the Minister comment on the current situation with the IT system within Defra? What is proposed for the new scheme, and is this set in stone or are discussions still afoot as to exactly how to structure the scheme from an IT perspective?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, in particular because I too support Amendment 149. In these proceedings we are encouraged and even exhorted to be brief, and I hope I can meet that expectation, first by adopting all the observations made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and my noble friend Lord Greaves.
Some of your Lordships may remember that at an earlier stage in these proceedings I sought to make a case for the recognition of support for small farms in less favoured areas. I do so again today unequivocally because in my judgment, such support is not only desirable but necessary. It is necessary to ensure the survival of viable businesses, it helps avoid the risk of land abandonment, and it ensures that land continues to be put to good agricultural use, in addition to which it combats depopulation. I would describe all these as public goods. However, they are public goods which have benevolent consequences, because support of that kind and the continuation of agricultural activity in such areas helps preserve communities and support social infrastructure, such as schools, post offices and medical services. I hope therefore that when the Minister comes to address us he will provide an explanation as to why these desirable objectives and outcomes do not find favour with the Government.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 130. In my years in business I have run a few businesses in the rural area: principally some forestry in Herefordshire, a little horticulture—down to a very small amount now—a small amount of viticulture, and just 40 acres of woodland registered with the Forestry Commission. I have led a number of large businesses, in India, Sri Lanka and the UK. One of the key determinants of a successful business is not to have a review too long after you start out on a big project such as this one. In my judgment, seven years is far too long when there are quite so many variables.
We have only to listen to noble Lords as we debate the Bill. We hear of variables that were anticipated and of those that nobody ever expected to happen. In addition, there are new problems due to the fact that we will be an independent nation. There are variables caused by climate change—how many of those have we had in the last seven years? There are variables due to Brexit, and due to the Environment Bill, which we have yet to debate. There are variables that will come from the penetration of 5G across the rural parts of the United Kingdom. Broadband is absolutely vital to rural communities.
Finally, one of the key problems at the moment is that a significant number of the staff who serve us as civil servants, and do it so well, are still working from home—is it 90% of them? Can my noble friend tell me how many or what percentage of Defra staff are currently back in the office?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I will say a few words about the transition period and, in particular, in support of Amendments 150 to 154 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, which have the support of the National Farmers Union and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, among others.
These amendments focus on funding during the transition period and touch on the vital importance of maintaining food security during the period when we are moving over to the new payment scheme. Cash flow is a major problem for many organisations, and in some cases it has been a factor in businesses, and indeed farms, going bankrupt. It has become a huge problem during the Covid-19 lockdown, and it threatens many people’s livelihoods. It has also been an ongoing problem for farmers, who have sometimes had to wait long periods before receiving payments. We know that any new systems need time to bed in, so these amendments make allowance for any problems in the implementation of the new scheme, and I support them.
I am also supportive of Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as are number of your Lordships. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the need to take special care of small farmers and less favoured areas where farming is extremely vulnerable, which need our support during this time.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I will speak briefly to Amendment 146 but will refer in passing to quite a number of other amendments.
Before the CAP was even a glimmer in the eye of the founder of the European Union, the agricultural sector was operating in a regulated marketplace, which makes it quite different from almost all other kinds of business and commerce. In such a marketplace there is a need for all those involved to have a degree of certainty, which is as important from the Government’s perspective as it is from the agricultural sector’s. The parties need to know what the lie of the land might be, if I may put it thus. That is why Clause 4 is so important, because it sets the framework of the way the land lies for the transitional period and points to the world beyond it.
It seems that the problem surrounding Clause 4 is essentially twofold. First, the process of Brexit has been so drawn out that the length of time to effect a seamless move to the new era is too curtailed for it to be achieved as originally envisaged. Secondly, the coming into being of the ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—which was intended to replace the basic payment scheme, has been so delayed, as a number of noble Lords have said, that it is no longer available for farmers and land managers to transition into it and into the new economic and agricultural environment, which is the heart of the new era. As well is it seeming inherently unjust, it is not part of the basic political and policy proposition that was put to the British people as to how we left the CAP.
Moreover, there is a real risk that it may end up causing a muddle in terms of public policy outputs. If you oversimplify it, under the basic payments scheme, the public goods which the state paid for were farming, and everything else was a kind of bolt-on extra. We are now moving into a brave new world where everything else is public goods and food production is a bolt-on extra. That is quite a turnaround.
Against that background, there is, as several noble Lords have said, a chasm—or what might be described as the valley of the shadow of death—that lies between the two eras and into which a significant amount of both farm businesses and land may fall. This will get in the way of implementing the policies we are discussing; indeed, it may put certain parts of them into reverse.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on a previous occasion when discussing the Bill, we must not be frightened of failure, surely the underlying intended purpose is to effect a successful transition from the old to the new. That is why the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Curry, is important, as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, because they recognise, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that things may not actually turn out as planned and intended. You need to build into your system a way of modifying your arrangements, and an escape route.
It is clear from our discussion of this clause that the present transitional process is flawed, and those flaws need ironing out, because if we are to make a successful journey from the old world to the new, we have to get to the destination in one piece and not have a car crash.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teverson has tabled Amendments 130 and 142, which would reduce the transition period between farmers receiving direct payments under the CAP and moving on to the ELM scheme. He is concerned about the length of time that will elapse before the farming community has become fully environmentally aware and responds to the Bill’s ethos of public money for public goods. Both COPs 26 and 15 have been postponed. The number of species facing extinction is growing, and biodiversity, which includes pollination and soil quality, is very important. The current financial systems work against biodiversity. This is not satisfactory.
Most Peers are concerned that the period before ELMS becomes fully operational should be further away, giving farmers more time to adjust to the change. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, support this view. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke about the gap between phasing out direct payments and introducing ELMS, and said that no farmer should have more than a 25% cut in their direct payments until ELMS is introduced.
The funding of less favoured areas has again been raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I fully support him in in his concerns. I ask the Minister to give a categoric undertaking that the so-called less favoured areas will receive funding. Unless he does, noble Lords on all sides of the House will continue to raise this important subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, has tabled a number of important amendments related to timescales, cash flows and delinked payments—all extremely important in reassuring the farming community of just how and when they will receive financial assistance—which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has supported. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, again raises the issue of animal welfare, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. We have debated animal welfare on previous amendments, and it is essential that that theme be a thread that runs through the Bill and thus be included in a number of clauses.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, believes that Defra will not be ready in 2021 to move to ELMS, and so wishes to put this off until 2022, and he is supported by other Peers. I share his concern about Defra’s preparedness. However, giving it more time is unlikely to assist. Moving deadlines does not always produce results, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, lets Defra off the hook for not having met the deadlines; I am afraid I am not quite so generous.
Finally, farmers are left in the dark on what is approaching, despite its being trailed well in advance. I fully support the move to ELMS, but I am very concerned that insufficient information is available to give your Lordships and farmers confidence that their future will be secured. The Minister needs to provide reassurance that Defra and the RPA can cope, because from what I have heard this afternoon, I do not believe they can.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This is an interesting group of amendments, the various areas of focus being multiannual plans and the transition period. As is customary, I declare my agricultural interests as recorded on the register.
The first cluster of amendments concerns the start date and duration of the multiannual plans. Amendment 130 and, consequentially, Amendment 142, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would reduce the initial multiannual plan to five years starting from 2021. Moving from a previous group to this group, Amendment 131, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would extend the subsequent multiannual plans to seven years, in the opposite direction, but leave the start date at 2021. Amendment 143, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others, delays the start of the transition phase of seven years until 2022, but technically, this seems to leave hanging the oddity under Clause 4(3) that the first planned period of seven years—the transition phase—starts in 2021 and will give rise to two competing seven-year periods.
Amendment 146, in my name, appears to involve a similar anomaly to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, regarding Clause 4(3), by delaying the start of the transition phase to 2022. However, under proposed new subsection (4) in our Amendment 146, flexibility is provided to shorten the transition phase if this becomes necessary. The whole amendment, drafted to replace Clause 8, is designed to provide flexibility. Proposed new subsection (2) would provide that flexibility by accommodating the disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic this year through a one-year delay. It would also accommodate the possibility of a subsequent further disruption should a second spike strike, as further misfortune, it has recently been argued, may well be a possibility or even a likelihood.
Is there Minister confident about the readiness to implement the first planned period as soon as 2021? Last year, the National Audit Office was concerned that the Treasury and Defra had not built in enough time to implement the new funding system. Certainly, there are doubts that farmers and land managers would be able to accommodate the change to the support system in order to start next year. However, it could be argued that it may not be necessary to require a further full seven-year period for the first planned period, having had a delay to the start. The planned period could be shortened by the flexibility provided by proposed new subsection (4).
I merely comment to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that the first planned period being longer than subsequent planned periods would appear to make sense in order to allow the trials, pilots and designs of the new ELM scheme to be properly understood, responded to and taken up, in time for any reassessments to be thought through for subsequent planned periods.
I do not know whether we really need to be concerned about election cycles, debated last week, should the plans to change the five-year Parliament Act be taken up. Clause 4(4) of the Bill merely stipulates that subsequent planned periods must not be less than five years.
The Minister will be aware from the UK’s membership of the EU that one multiannual plan is often barely in operation before plans come forward to improve it to ignite responses in the member states.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is always challenging when one noble Lord decides on one timeframe and another noble Lord chooses another. Sometimes the Government must make decisions on their position. Our position has been undertaken through a lot of consideration. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his Amendment 130, which seeks to reduce the length of the first multiannual financial assistance plan.
We are all agreed that the nature of farming is a long-term affair. For that reason, we felt that having clarity of funding across multiple years was of paramount importance. As drafted, Clause 4 requires that the first planned period will run for seven years. This is designed to match the length of the agricultural transition period, which is a key time for the development of government policy. Schemes will be tested and piloted. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said—I was not in a position to reply to my noble friend Lord Lucas—the purpose of tests, pilots and trials is to iron out what has not worked particularly well and find those schemes that come forward as the most dynamic and the best value for money for the taxpayer. The findings from these experiences will inform the development of future schemes and strategic objectives. We believe that shortening the period covered by the first plan would hinder our ability to assess schemes and take a considered view of what works and what does not.
The majority of the amendments in this group address the length of the agricultural transition period. I will address Amendments 142 to 146, on the subject of direct payment reductions. The planned agricultural transition period allows a gradual transition from the existing area-based payments to the future system, where public money will be paid for public goods. We deliberately made this time to avoid a cliff edge for farm businesses. Following an extensive consultation, we believe that seven years strikes the right balance between signalling the end of area-based payments and giving farmers time to adjust. Shortening the transition period would mean steeper rates of payment reductions, which we believe would put undue pressure on farmers who are currently reliant on direct payments at a time when they are adapting to a future without them.
I think that most of us agree that direct payments offer poor value for money. Appropriate reductions to these payments will free up funds that can be used to fund new countryside stewardship agreements, introduce the Environmental Land Management national pilot in 2021 and introduce schemes to boost industry productivity, through which grants will be available so that farmers can invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure. The reductions for 2021 will be modest. As I was reminded, there are within the margin of what would often be currency rate changes in previous regimes. They will be no more than 5% for around 80% of farmers, based on the 2018 scheme data. I will look at Hansard because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke about a minimum; my understanding is that it will be no more than 5% but I would like to clarify that point.
A seven-year transition period gives enough time to ensure that ELM is fully up and running before direct payments end. The Government are undertaking a large stakeholder-led programme of tests and trials for certain elements of the scheme design. We plan to pilot our approach in 2021 ahead of the rollout of ELM in 2024. In their election manifesto, the Government guaranteed the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament. We have also published the maximum reductions that we intend to apply in the first year of transition. These were first announced in September 2018 to give farmers sufficient notice. The Government will set out further information on funding for the early years of the agricultural transition period, including direct payments, in the autumn.
Having declared my interests, I should say that I well understand that many of my neighbouring farmers—indeed, all the farmers I know—are very keen to know more on this. I appreciate that. I assure noble Lords that the point is hoisted and that I know why it is important. I look forward to that information coming forward in the autumn.
While direct payments currently form an important contribution to income on many farms in England, we believe that they can hamper productivity growth in the agricultural sector. That is why, within the sum that will be released, that money will be diverted into countryside stewardship and productivity grants so that farmers can start, through their business interests, to take advantage of the money that will move from direct payments into these other areas of support.
While I have been at the Dispatch Box, there have been varying years relating to the RPA. It is interesting, and I think my noble friend Lord Northbrook is correct. The payment profile of the RPA has very much improved since my first exercises on this in 2015. We have seen considerable advance in rates of payment; indeed, this has been a very strong priority of the ministerial team.
Defra’s ELM programme will lead and be accountable for the delivery of the national pilot, working with our delivery partners: the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Rural Payments Agency. We are working with the RPA to ensure that it has capacity to deliver the pilot, and we are confident that it will be able to do so. This is on the relationship in this first stage of the pilot.
Another concern which the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond raised was computer programmes. Again, we have all been scarred by computer programme issues. Defra digital, data and technology specialists are currently working to ensure that the IT needs of the national pilot and ELM will be in place on time, and they are focusing on the ability to make accurate payments on time, on which I place enormous importance. We are confident in our ability to deliver these IT schemes.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, tabled Amendment 149 relating to upland farmers, and I am struck by what my noble friend Lord Randall said about lowland farmers as well. The Government recognise that upland farmers play a vital role in looking after the countryside. We believe that they already provide many environmental benefits, and so will be very well placed to deliver environmental outcomes—and incomes—which will be rewarded under the ELMS.
Therefore, I say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that we are fully seized of the importance of small upland and lowland farmers who have contributed so much, not only to communities but to the landscape more widely. It is really important that they are part of the ELMS, and I believe that what they will provide for the nation will be very considerable. The Government will apply reductions to the payments in a fair way, and smaller farmers will initially experience lower reductions than larger farmers.
Turning to Amendments 150 to 152, we recognise in Part 2 of the Bill that in exceptional market conditions it is right for the Government to be able to intervene. Clause 8 allows for the extension of the agricultural transition period, should it be necessary. The Government believe that seven years is enough time for an agricultural transition, however we may need to act swiftly and robustly in unforeseen circumstances that warrant an extension.
I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, but also to my noble friend Lady Rock, that, regarding how delinked payments will work, the Government have made clear that they intend to delink direct payments during the transition period. When that happens, the recipient of delinked payments would not need to remain a farmer to receive them. When delinked payments are introduced, they will replace the current basic payment scheme entirely and for all farmers. The basic payment scheme and delinked payments cannot and will not coexist.
Eligibility for delinked payments will be based on a reference period. For example, it may be necessary to have claimed, or been eligible, under the direct payment scheme in a particular year or years. This is also important: we will consult with farmers before setting this reference period in regulations, and it will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. I say particularly to my noble friend Lady Rock that timescales for basic payment scheme payments are already set out within the retained EU regulations.
With regard to Amendment 153, when we introduce delinked payments, we may wish to move away from the current approach of making a single payment per year and issue payments more frequently instead; Clause 12 gives this flexibility. We believe that more frequent payments would help farmers’ cash flow, and this has been mentioned by your Lordships.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in that full reply from the Minister I heard him justify the seven-year period and explain Clause 8 giving the Government power to extend the transition if necessary. However, I did not hear his response to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on why the transition is to start next year and not in 2022.
Some of us, going back to the last Labour Government, have a lot of experience with the problems of the RPA and getting new systems up and running. The Minister spoke with great confidence about these systems being viable and how the IT was going to work. All I can say to him is: good luck with that. I hope he is correct.
In the event that the RPA runs into problems, under the Bill as currently drafted—irrespective of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh —do the Government have the power to delay the start of the transition and the pilots? Despite the noble Lord’s confidence that everything will be okay, many of us will feel much more assured if we know that the legal powers are there and will prevent a headlong rush in the event of teething and administrative problems.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There are a number of points there. I think I said that under Clause 8 the Government allow for an extension of the agricultural transition period, should that be necessary, so there is an important safeguard there; we can extend the agricultural transition period.
I think I did reply to my noble friend; it may not be satisfactory to the noble Lord or my noble friend. We believe that direct payments offer poor value for money, and that is why we want to start in 2021 with, as I say, a modest reduction. I have deliberately said that this will be no more than 5% for around 80% of farmers, so that we can redirect that money into an ELM national pilot, Countryside Stewardship agreements and productivity grants.
Yes, we are all scarred by computer systems. I am the first to say that I am not a computer expert; that is why we have people who are. I repeat that everyone working on these matters is experienced in them, because clearly—as I have said—we want payments on time and a successful outcome for farmers. We also want to make sure that the ELM and all we do hereon in is value for money for the taxpayer. In the end, it is the taxpayer who will reward the farmer for doing the things that we as a society know the farmer can do very well.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I have two questions. He said the RPA would do the trial next year, then he came to a full stop. Does that mean his mind is open and that another body could be responsible for implementing the ELMS in future? Secondly, he referred to the autumn announcement. Can he be more specific on the timing of the autumn announcement and whether we will get that before Report?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I cannot give my noble friend the precise date. I know noble Lords would like that announcement to be as soon as possible—I will take that away—but I am afraid I cannot give your Lordships a precise date. In fact, I do not know the precise date, but it will be in autumn. I am fully seized of the importance of that.
As to whether the delivery body is the RPA in the long term, I believe it is well placed. I cannot give a direct answer as to whether the RPA will in fact do all the ELM. I suspect it may, but that is obviously a matter we will consider.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, beat me to it. I was going to ask for the date of the Autumn Statement and request that it occur before Report. I reiterate that there really is no point in us coming back to all these issues if the Government are about to issue a Statement that will add considerable clarity and amount to a multiannual financial assistance plan. Anything the Minister can do to get that Statement before Report would be appreciated.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I can say to the noble Earl and other noble Lords that I have the matter strongly in my mind.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I was not going to pursue this, but my noble friend’s answer has perplexed me. He said the Government wish to phase out direct payments as they provide poor value for money. The whole thrust of the debate on Amendment 143 this afternoon is that if whatever will replace direct payments is not in position, is it wise to start phasing out direct payments at that time? Can my noble friend not permit himself a degree of flexibility in this regard?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government have sought that flexibility in how we reduce the payments, as I say. Although we will make announcements on funding for the early years of agricultural transition, we have also provided that flexibility for unforeseen circumstances in which, for instance, we would need to extend the agricultural transition period.
We want to start in 2021 because this is a journey—to pick up some of the points at the beginning—about how we work with health and harmony. How do we ensure, working with farmers, that we produce very good food and enhance the environment? Of course, I take the point that we must get the system working well, but the prize in all this—public money going to support farmers in enhancing the environment—is a very desirable thing.
Lord Teverson [V]
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his support. We are not often on the same side of things and I very much appreciate his remarks and the considered remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and even the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who understand the biodiversity dimensions of this, even if they do not—[Inaudible.]
There is a real issue here. Funnily enough, I do not disagree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about pushing back the start one year, just to make sure we get this incredibly important issue for the nation right before we start. But I cannot believe it can take seven years for a nation such as ours to implement a new system; five years is far more acceptable for what we have to do. In fact, it seems the seven years that many advocate is going back to the mentality of the common agricultural policy and the European Union—that slo-mo mindset that we are trying to escape with this new scheme. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 140. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 140
Lord Greaves
“Financial assistance to be provided on the basis of public funds for public goods
(1) Financial assistance under this Chapter may only be provided if it is in accordance with the rule “public funds for public goods”.(2) The rule referred to in subsection (1) is to be provided for in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require that the meaning of public goods for the purpose of this legislation is set out and agreed by Parliament and provides a clear basis for the provision of financial assistance.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving Amendment 140 I will also speak to Amendment 141, which is grouped with it although it is a different issue. I will speak to Amendment 141 first.
Earlier on in this Committee, a long time ago, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said—I am almost quoting him—that the Government never use compulsion and would never instruct farmers what they should do. That is a fine sentiment. The purpose of this slightly convoluted amendment is very simple: to ask how the Government intend to proceed on large tier 3 schemes in circumstances in which one or more landowners is being obstructive and refusing to take part.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the sentiments behind these two amendments. To consider Amendment 140 first, we are in the dark a little. My understanding—and I hope my noble friend the Minister will explain this in winding up—is that public good and natural capital will be explained further in the Environment Bill, which we have not yet had sight of here. I share the noble Lord’s concern as to what we understand by “public good”.
I was heartened yesterday by an Answer from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith that nature lies at the heart of the Government’s biodiversity strategy. I argue that looking after nature, which farmers do so well, is a form of public good. I am wedded to the idea of natural flood defences as well. I like to think that active farming underlies this. Will my noble friend confirm that we will have a better understanding of what public funds for public goods are—this is the whole difficulty with the Bill—because it is set out in the Environment Bill, which is not before us now? That would be very helpful.
I also support the idea of providing the means to resolve a dispute in the cases set out in Amendment 141. I took a great interest in one of the vexed schemes, because there were 16 to 20 graziers in a project, who had the right in perpetuity to graze on common land that had a different landowner from where they were tenants. It was a very complex situation. I hope that my noble friend and Defra come up with a scheme where the natural capital or public good is provided by the landowner and a tenant benefits from the scheme. I would like to know what the Government have in mind to resolve disputes such as this. There are similar instances that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will discuss as part of his Amendment 159A, but he has raised issues that are worthy of debate today.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are all anxious to make progress, so I shall be brief.
These two amendments from my noble friend Lord Greaves, which I strongly support, are deceptively modest but very significant in the context of this Bill. As has been said, the concept of public goods has been a persistent and welcome thread through the early sections of the Bill. Some Members may think that it should have been more rigorously defined on the face of the Bill. I do not accept the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that we can wait for the Environment Bill. Frankly, by the time we get there, too much of the present Bill will have been decided.
With Amendment 140, my noble friend rightly seeks to achieve a full parliamentary examination of this essential element of the post-CAP package. I lost count of the number of Members in the previous debate who were referring to public goods, and of course Ministers have, throughout all stages of this Bill in both Houses, referred to public goods. Therefore, I hope that the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that we have a proper parliamentary discussion of this important definition, can happen. My previous service on the DPRRC persuades me that this is the proper procedure here.
Turning to Amendment 141, which deals with large-scale tier-3 schemes, my experience of Dartmoor, where I used to chair meetings of the national park committee, and my experience of Bodmin Moor, which adjoined my home in my then constituency, made me especially aware of the sensitivity of moorland restoration schemes. These can have a challenging effect on all those who are interested in them, and on farms in LFAs, which have also been a common theme this afternoon.
Whatever their respective merits, nobody can deny that they inevitably impact on several landowners and land managers, and a variety of other users. Since the UK has responsibility for the stewardship of no less than three quarters of the world’s heather moorlands, this should be very high in our awareness of potentially clashing interests. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said. Like me, she will be well aware of how difficult decisions can be in deciding between different interests in that context.
It may well be true of other projects with overall beneficial environmental objectives, but the likely economic or other impacts on individuals or groups in those circumstances can be very important. I have had experience of uncomfortable impacts—admittedly relatively short-term ones—from major schemes such as coastal marsh creation schemes. My noble friend suggests that we should have the affirmative procedure to look at the details when then Minister comes forward with these. I hope he accepts that this too offers a practical solution.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend’s two amendments are very interesting. Starting with Amendment 140, I thought that I knew what the public good was, having produced amendments which I thought were centred around it, such as public access and how you support that access and make it more readily available to those with disabilities and so on. However, when I read this amendment, I thought, “Ah, someone else put that at a priority level; that makes it a public good.” It is in the Bill, but is it as high a public good as something else? What happens if it starts to compete, which it will, with other activities? For instance, if you want to encourage a certain animal or plant somewhere and a path goes through it, which changes? On that fundamental level, getting some idea about how the assessments are made is important.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I well understand why Members who are in the Government are anxious to move this Bill forward as quickly as possible, but if anything ever illustrated the value of this House and the limitations of another place, it is this Bill. The other place barely considered this Bill, and certainly not in any detail. Your Lordships’ House has sought to scrutinise, which without filibustering has still taken a long time, but it is a crucial Bill which will affect the lives of all of us, directly or indirectly, in the coming years.
There is no more important industry in our country than farming, and certainly no industry more productive or upon which we all depend so much, yet it faces a period of unparalleled uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening so carefully and replying so sympathetically, but it is crucial that the Government display sensitivity and flexibility. This was illustrated very well indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who did himself a disservice by talking about “convoluted amendments”. Frankly, we must address this central issue of public goods and public money. I would prefer “public” to have a capital “P”, and to have “good” and “benefit” in the singular, because although the phrase may come trippingly off the tongue, the public good is very different in the farmlands of Lincolnshire from the farming of the Scottish borders. Of course, the farming duty goes with farming, the responsibility for wildlife, the countryside and the overall appearance of the environment, but the fundamental public good is the quality of what is produced, and this is where I cross swords with the Minister.
We touched on this in our debates last week. There is no greater public good and certainly no greater public responsibility than producing food to sustain the nation. Last week we also touched on the fact that the defence of the nation itself depends on the amount and quality of food that our farmers are able to produce. I hope that between now and Report the Minister—I address this to him personally and specifically—will seek to produce in the Bill a schedule or clause that defines “public good”, setting out precisely what it means and precisely what it is.
I will not go on at greater length. I am limiting my contributions to the debates on the Bill because I understand the Minister’s wish to move forward as quickly as possible. However, it must not be speed at the expense of scrutiny and, when we come to Report, ultimately the Government must help to put the Bill into better shape than it is in at the moment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves has set out his case for the inclusion of Amendments 140 and 141, supported by my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Addington, both of whom pressed the case for an assessment of what constitutes “public goods”.
Amendment 140 would require financial assistance to be provided on the basis of public money for public goods, and it requires the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution. More examination is needed of exactly what the Government mean by “public goods” and how that will be defined. It could mean myriad things.
Amendment 141 would give clear instructions to the Secretary of State to order owners and managers of land to take part in a project—that is, a coastal marsh creation or a large-scale moorland restoration—in which they do not wish to participate.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, supports both amendments. She is aware that there are often disputes between tenants and landlords that need to be sorted out. My noble friend Lord Addington said that even small landowners and not just large ones are very wary of change and will often object to taking part in projects. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised the importance of scrutinising the Bill and of taking time to do it. I do not think that we can be accused of not doing so. As he said, farming is extremely important.
It is important that such vital projects for land improvement are not thwarted by individual landowners, but I am less clear that the degree of compulsion is in the spirit of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this issue.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We have had a varied debate but I wish to raise some further points and questions.
The Government’s communications on the Bill have focused on the principle of public money for public goods—a principle of almost total consensus. However, our current understanding of what constitutes “public goods” is fairly limited and, although widely used in this debate and the previous one, it is not a term used in the Bill. Although Chapter 1 outlines the purposes for which money can be given, our understanding of “public goods” probably differs according to our political emphasis. For example, my party would have a greater focus on food as a public good. It is a long time since I studied A-level economics, but I am sure that I remember a discussion centring around the fact that public goods are particularly apposite to sustaining a well-ordered society. They contribute to social inclusion and strengthen a shared sense of citizenship. In fact, it was debates such as those that fired my interest in politics and led to a lifetime spent working in public service. Therefore, will the Minister seek to define the phrase for the purposes of this legislation?
Amendment 141 proposes introducing an ability for the Secretary of State to order a landowner to participate in a large-scale tier 3 scheme. The Bill already represents a huge shift in how farmers are funded and this process will be much easier if it has the consent of landowners. Can the Minister therefore outline what powers are already available in the event of an owner or land manager refusing to participate in a scheme, even when there is a clear public interest in that scheme going ahead?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his Amendment 140. Our new “public money for public goods” policy aims to reward farmers and land managers for goods and services that benefit society but are not currently traded on the market. The financial assistance powers in Clause 1(1) provide the Secretary of State with the power to spend money for furthering certain purposes, which in turn can help to deliver these public goods. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to define the “public funds for public goods” rule. This Bill does not include a definition of “public goods” because it provides powers to the Secretary of State to pay financial assistance for a number of purposes that will enable Defra to introduce its future policies, including productivity grants, as set out in Clause 1(2).
Perhaps I may go further. In terms of this Bill, public goods are goods and services that are valued by society but not provided by the market, including things such as clean water and air, thriving plants and wildlife, a reduction in and protection from environmental hazards, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, the beauty and heritage of the environment and engagement with it.
The noble Lord asked whether productivity was a public good. The more productive the method of farming, often the more environmentally sound that farming method is. Our priority is a productive farming sector—one that will support farmers to provide more home-grown healthy produce made to high environmental and animal welfare standards. More efficient production has the benefits of lower costs and higher yields and, in many cases, a reduced impact on the environment.
The Government believe that by moving to a new system based on public money for public goods, and by supporting farming through productivity schemes and grants, we will put English farmers in the best position possible to boost sustainable food production. Defining “public good” in the Bill and requiring every pound spent under Clause 1 to meet this rule would unnecessarily restrict the Government’s ability to deliver their goal of a more sustainable, productive sector. Perhaps I may reiterate what Clause 1(4) says:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must 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.”
Amendment 141 seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to require landowners or managers to participate in landscape-scale land-use change projects. The Government recognise that the ELM scheme will be most successful if it has very high levels of participation. This could be particularly important when considering locally targeted or landscape-scale projects under tiers 2 and 3 of ELMS, especially where any such projects require collaboration. The Government are therefore working closely with stakeholders, including landowners, to ensure that the scheme is attractive and offers appropriate and sufficient incentives to secure the necessary voluntary participation in projects. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was correct in saying that the use of coercion in these larger projects is very much against the spirit of the entire Bill.
With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I thank the Minister but I have to say that those are the two most disappointing responses I have heard from Ministers during the entire Committee. I have spent a lifetime trying to get practical public projects of all sorts going—some big, some small—and, if I am an expert in anything, it is knowing about obstruction and delays, and overcoming those.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 155. I remind noble Lords 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 the debate.
Clause 16: Support for rural development
Amendment 155
The Earl of Devon
“( ) making provision for future contributions to existing rural socio-economic schemes;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would safeguard the availability of financial provisions to continue the socio-economic programmes under Rural Development Programmes in the event of delays in the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Committee—we have made a lot of progress in the last few minutes. It is good to see that we are now up to Clause 16, focusing on support for rural development.
It is an honour to move Amendment 155. This is a simple amendment, supported by the CLA, which seeks to ensure that there is no gap in the support for rural socioeconomic schemes such as the Growth Programme and LEADER scheme, which are currently administered by the RDPE. They do so much to support the development of rural business through grants, training and the provision of advice. I have already noted my farming interests but, specific to this amendment, I should note that our rural heritage tourism business has applied for, and been granted, an RDPE grant—although, as far as I am aware, it will not be impacted by this amendment.
The work of the RDPE in assisting and administering rural development using European funds is key to maintaining the productivity and employment currently enjoyed by many otherwise struggling rural businesses. These are the businesses that, by current estimates, will suffer most from the economic catastrophe that is Covid-19 and the subsequent brutality of Brexit.
The role of the RDPE is due to be taken over by the UK shared prosperity fund, but we currently have no idea when that will take place. This amendment seeks simply to ensure that there is no gap between the winding up of the RDPE and access to the European funds and the establishment of the UK shared prosperity fund.
In a series of questions in this House on 21 May 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, made it clear that, while the Government could give assurances about the UK shared prosperity fund, they could give no assurances whatever as to its timing—and so, we remain in the dark. Perhaps the Minister can shed some more light on when the UK shared prosperity fund will take effect.
Without this amendment, these key socioeconomic schemes may find themselves falling into that transition chasm, lost in the valley of the shadow of death. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendment 156. It tries to ensure that as many as possible farming families, who, to me, are the backbone of rural England, will be able to survive on their land through the various agricultural crises that will inevitably come their way over future decades. The first crisis is the dramatic changes introduced by this Bill.
Anyone who talks to farmers, tenants or owner-occupiers who are farming land that could probably not be described as prime agricultural land will know that, without the single farm payment, they currently have little chance of survival. They cannot survive solely on their agricultural production to produce the family income. All too often, the single farm payment provides more than 100% of their agricultural returns. As we all know, this will soon not be there anymore. Some farmers and their families branch out into other enterprises on their farm, involving tourism, leisure or local services such as contracting or some form of engineering. But mostly, these farming families—wives, sons, daughters and often even the farmer himself—depend on cash wages from local businesses, which allow the farming household to survive on the land. The whole survival of the farm and the family, or families, on it depends on the vitality of the wider rural economy around them.
It is important to remember that, throughout England as a whole, agriculture represents less than 5% of the rural economy. This dependency on outside jobs is particularly obvious on those farms, both lowland and upland, involved in livestock—mostly up and down the western side of England and, of course, in Wales and Northern Ireland. The further you get from urban centres, the more this applies.
What I am saying should not surprise anyone as this feature of rural living was one of the founding principles of the CAP with its two pillars: Pillar 1 supporting agriculture per se and Pillar 2 supporting rural development. The EU decision-makers knew that, to keep farmers on the land and prevent them leaving to join the urban unemployed, a variety of rural jobs would need to be available to both men and women near their farms. Returning to this country, and going back even further in history, it should be noted that, when Lloyd George started the Rural Development Commission before the First World War, he had exactly the same targets in mind. The RDC eventually became the Countryside Agency until it all got swept into Defra and then, of course, disappeared.
I am trying to give back to Defra a very small arrow in its quiver to continue the good work started so many years ago. It is not a new game but a tried-and-tested tool to help farming families stay on their land. I am also trying to give Defra a small reason to justify keeping “rural affairs” in its title.
I know that the Government will say that all this is going to be taken care of by the shared prosperity fund —as my noble friend Lord Devon has just said—but how and when will we know? Rural proofing is a concept that has lost its way recently, so what makes us think that the shared prosperity fund is going to break that mould? Can the Minister guarantee today that there will be a well-financed ring-fenced rural fund that will be an essential part of the shared prosperity fund?
If he can, that is all well and good but, even so, would it not be a good idea for Defra to have this rural development arrow in its quiver? Would it not be a good idea to hold on to the tried and tested way of helping farmers stay on the land, particularly as Defra already knows that a good percentage of farmers are going to struggle to survive under the new regime this Bill is putting in place?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I oppose Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. This follows on neatly from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, with whom I have the pleasure to serve on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
The original purposes of the rural development fund have made a great change to the countryside, improving the quality of life and economic well-being especially of those living in rural areas that are particularly isolated and sparsely populated, such as where I grew up—Teesdale in County Durham—and also the areas that I had the pleasure and privilege to represent in the other place: deeply rural parts of North Yorkshire.
The policy statement that was published in February this year says of the Rural Development Programme for England for 2014 to 2020:
“This £3.5 billion programme will continue to include support for rural businesses to expand and create new jobs and for farmers and growers to buy innovative new equipment.”
This is under the “Preserving our rural resilience” heading, and it goes to the heart of what is perhaps another gap.
I ask my noble friend the Minister, in summing up, to show that this gap will be closed in the current aims of the Rural Development Programme—which have so well served rural communities—and to show how this voyage into the unknown of the UK shared prosperity fund will actually work in the interests of rural areas. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: how will Clause 16 build on this and how will necessarily limited funds continue to be used for these socioeconomic purposes that have served rural communities so well?
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I also support a number—in fact, the majority —of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Amendment 157 is in my name and I thank noble Lords who have offered their support for it, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has also put his name to it.
The farmers—those in our rural communities bringing in the crops and so on—have been on the front line throughout the Covid crisis and they deserve our thanks and an enduring debt of gratitude. In the Agriculture Bill in front of us, we have the opportunity to repay some of that debt, and part of this is what Amendment 157 is all about. Inputting high-speed, reliable and capacity-led broadband and the digital skills with which to competently and comfortably operate online seems to be essential to farmers and all those in our rural communities, to enable them to have optimal business, professional and personal lives.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support of Amendment 157, of which I am a signatory and which was so well proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. As we all agreed during the passage of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, the Covid-19 lockdown has shown how dependent we all are on good, fast and resilient broadband—nowadays, few more so than those in our agricultural sector. Indeed, it is clear from the difficulty many Peers have had in contributing virtually to our proceedings how woeful broadband is in some areas, especially rural ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, illustrated the lack of rural connectivity through the NFU surveys and this is backed up by the Ofcom reports. The average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that in major conurbations in 2018. During the passage of the Bill, I said that the status of the Government’s intentions regarding the timing of the delivery of a 1 gigabit-capable service or ultrafast broadband was unclear. It is especially unclear as regards rural areas and specifically 5G.
With regard to 5G, we have the Shared Rural Network, which is a collaboration between the four networks that started as a 4G project to cover the notspots. Then, we have the seven trials that have been selected in the Rural Connected Communities competition for funding from what is called the 5G Testbeds and Trials Programme. It now seems that projects have been selected in West Mercia, Orkney, Dorset, Monmouthshire, Wiltshire and Yorkshire.
How do all these fit in with the several existing funding programmes for full fibre, launched under the May Government, including two voucher schemes to subsidise full-fibre connections to rural premises and small and medium-sized businesses? How are the Government avoiding unnecessary duplication in the rollout of full fibre to the home? What about Ofcom’s determination that there will be market competition in some areas—prospective competition and others—and non-competition in yet others? Is that really the most effective way of delivering the Government’s strategy, particularly in rural areas?
In another development, the Secretary of State did not mince his words last Tuesday on the consequences of the Government’s decision on Huawei, from which it is clear that the operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out while bearing, as they will have to, the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. Many of his Conservative colleagues thought that he was offering too extended a timescale. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Are there really no plans to compensate operators, and will the full costs actually fall on consumers?
In his announcement, the Secretary of State admitted that this will delay rollout by two to three years. Given that 100% coverage at one gigabit will take much longer to achieve, will the Government now prioritise 5G rollout for rural areas, where full-fibre broadband is least likely to be installed on a market basis in the short and medium term?
I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment, intended to deliver specific priority for rural broadband provision and rural digital literacy. It seems extraordinary in retrospect that broadband connectivity was not included in Annex IV of the rural development regulation as a thematic sub-programme for the purposes of article 7, given that it dates only from 2013. In current circumstances, this is highly relevant—in fact, essential—to the future success of our agricultural sector. It must be part of achieving what are now the UK’s priorities for agriculture.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, argued, there should be a full review of the levels of rural broadband provision and digital literacy, especially before there is any obligation on farmers et al to comply with any regulations by digital means. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions about the rollout of rural broadband, but also that he will accept the crucial amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
Lord Addington
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when you know that somebody in front of you has said it a little better than you. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has done most of the heavy lifting on the basic thrust of this group: are we going to make sure that the rural economy is generally supported, along with agriculture? That is how I take it. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about broadband. As the last few months have established, I am afraid that it is nigh-on impossible to function in the modern world without broadband at the moment, unless you are going to live in a very tight circle. I hope that we will get answers in the affirmative.
Amendment 155, which I have my name to, asks a technical point: are we going to ensure there is continuity of supply if the UK shared prosperity fund takes a bit of time to get up and going? I hope that we will get the answer to that, and I express my total agreement with the sentiments of those who have already spoken.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendments in this group and will refer particularly to Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. For me, as somebody from Northern Ireland, this amendment resonates with our whole rural development approach. Through the rural development programme within the European Union, many rural communities benefited from the LEADER programme. It allowed farmers—and farming families—to supplement their income through like-minded industries such as crafts and other types of revenue-making businesses. It also helped the rural community to survive and ensured that those people were retained there, thus creating vibrant farm enterprises. It was a particularly good model. I would like to hear the Minister say how it is to be translated and transposed, through the Bill, into the local economy of England and Wales. What discussions have been held in the ministerial and officials’ group with the devolved regions about how it is to be translated on the ground, so to speak?
It is very important that productivity and employment in rural areas are underpinned so that farming families survive on the land. It is also important that we provide for sustainable farming enterprises, while recognising the difficulties that such households can face during unplanned-for crises, such as the pandemic at the moment or floods. We have witnessed many horrendous floods, which the science would suggest are a consequence of climate change. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, recognises the function of farming households in the countryside. It recognises that they are the pivot in the farming enterprise and of the rural economy.
Lord Cormack [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support all three of these amendments. I am probably the least qualified of all in your Lordships’ House to talk about broadband. Even during the previous debate, I lost the picture on my screen and without the Digital Support service would not have been able to regain it. But I accept all that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, have said; they made persuasive speeches and clearly have my support. I hope they will have the support of the Government.
I want to address my brief remarks to the amendments spoken to so eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. As someone who represented a rural constituency for 40 years in the other place, what they said rang true in every possible way. We must have not only a properly sustained agricultural industry in this country; we also need the rural support industries, of which they both spoke so eloquently and persuasively. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply, he will accept the absolute necessity of what they called a ring-fenced rural fund because without it, there will be a bleak future.
We have all seen the devastation already wrought by Covid-19. It will take many in the rural communities much longer to recover than many of those in the urban communities. Businesses will have gone for ever; we need to keep all the businesses we can and add new ones. Most of all, we need young people who feel that there is a future in the rural economy. I give my total support to all three amendments and await with expectation the Minister’s response.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I had the very pleasant experience on Sunday morning of paying a visit back to Glenscorrodale, the farm-steading where I grew up. Walking around what is no longer a farm, I was reminded of a number of factors relevant to this debate. From a very young age, I was absolutely convinced that it was not the life for me, but I have never failed to admire my brother and cousins, who stayed in the farming life however hard it was for young people to continue in farming as the decades progressed. These three amendments are really important for that reason. I am struck by just how much has changed in farm life over the decades since I was first able to wander around Glenscorrodale, and how much of farm life now is computerised or driven by technology for productivity reasons.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Devon on Amendment 155, and of my noble friend Lord Cameron on Amendment 156.
As I said in an earlier debate, the changes in policy embraced by this Bill are a huge opportunity but a massive challenge. One challenge is the lack of clarity on rural development. I am concerned that the Government’s response to the Rural Economy Committee’s report—I was a member of the committee—rejected a recommendation that there should be a dedicated element of the shared prosperity fund for the rural economy. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Cameron, has said, there is confusion about where support will come from for farming families, whose survival will depend on diversified activity. It is very unclear where the boundaries are within the potential sources of funding. The scope of the ELM scheme is unclear; the future of the RDPE is unclear; and the long-awaited terms of the shared prosperity fund are unclear. All this is on top of the fact that we await the details of the Environment Bill.
The level of uncertainty is unparalleled; there are so many overlapping unresolved issues. Twice this afternoon Psalm 23 has been quoted, likening the potential risk that we face to
“the valley of the shadow of death”.
The psalm continues with the phrase
“I will fear no evil”,
so I am sure that the Minister will provide clarity on this important issue.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, Amendment 156, from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, provides flexibility as not yet sufficiently available for Defra to help farming households carry out the purposes of the Bill. In the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, Amendment 155 is equally pertinent in anticipating delays following the introduction of the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund—hence its safeguards, financial provisions and continued socio-economic interventions under rural development programmes.
With regard to food supply chains, does the Minister consider that local, regional and domestic supply chains ought to be strongly encouraged, while backing for our producers is essential if we are to set them against cheap imports from America and subsidised food from Europe, and that rural development funding should therefore be provided for this purpose? Does he agree that government incentives for food supply chain infrastructure are not the same as subsidising food directly, and do not therefore conflict with the market, but instead—to the advantage of so many communities —would assist production viability, reduce food miles, improve animal welfare and create jobs?
The range of examples to be encouraged comprises outdoor markets; local food delivery hubs; enterprises that collect from farmers to sell to supermarkets, school canteens and hospitals; local farmers’ processing co-operatives; small factories making cheese, bacon, vegetable burgers, apple juice and other products processed from local farms; and, not least, small abattoirs, including mobile ones, in certain farming areas.
Does my noble friend also agree that local food supply chains already work very well with supermarkets, where the majority of United Kingdom consumers shop? This is evident in several countryside areas, such as Yeo Valley in Somerset. A processing co-operative there makes yoghurt, crème fraiche and butter, selling to large retailers, including Tesco. These are organic farmers using agro-ecological systems, yet they can sell their yoghurt at a very reasonable and affordable supermarket price. It is also now well illustrated in a number of other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, how local food hubs and farmers’ processing co-operatives can easily supply supermarkets, school canteens and hospitals.
Currently, and through this Bill, we have to review the best ways of replacing and restructuring previous schemes for rural development. Can the Minister reassure the House that, within the new arrangements, proper government incentives will be given to local food supply chains?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State, by a negative resolution, to modify existing rural development schemes agreed under the common agricultural policy as to both time and content, and to devise new schemes entirely outside the present parameters. I fail to see any requirement for consultation. Is there any and, if not, why not? Who will represent rural interests in Whitehall and inform funding decisions? The whole point of devolution in Wales and Scotland was democratically to bring the interests of all sectors closer to policymakers—and it has been highly successful.
England has very disparate rural and regional interests that have to look to Whitehall for compromises and single solutions. Perhaps a devolved Yorkshire assembly could occupy the hub that the Government propose to create in York, once the Westminster politicians have been there, done that and departed with the T-shirt. Clause 16, however, creates very significant powers, and their exercise should be open to full parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Government commit to amending the Bill on Report, to require the affirmative procedure? No consultation, and the negative procedure proposed in this Bill, make a very strong case, both in principle and practice, for the stand part opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She described it as a voyage into the unknown—and that is exactly what it is.
Funding for rural development has, over the period of our membership of the European Union, come from the rural development basic act and the common provisions basic act, and has accordingly been ring-fenced against the austerity cuts that have affected such areas as education and social services throughout this country. That ring-fencing of rural interests is about to be dismantled. I note the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the absence of ring-fencing.
I have always feared, and have said so in this House on a number of occasions, that in the post-Brexit world, there will be overwhelming political pressure on the Government to switch money from rural communities to urban areas. Demands on public services, particularly health and social care, must be answered—there are votes at stake. This issue is even more acute since the last election, when the Government derived significant support from the crumbling “red wall” urban areas, whose interests they now have to consider. The further centralising of services and jobs in large conurbations may drive further depopulation from the countryside. It may even destroy the Conservative Party’s traditional rural base of support. Will the Government make a commitment now, in the post-pandemic world of massive government expenditure, that rural communities will receive the same level of support for rural development as they do at present under the CAP regime? This issue is addressed in Amendment 155.
We await the details of the shared prosperity fund, and I am particularly concerned as to Wales’s involvement in that. I share the doubts expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Lord Curry, who pointed out how unclear it all is. It is important to build an infrastructure to support work in the rural communities—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to some agricultural-based industries. Part of that is addressed in Amendment 157, through the extension of broadband and mobile networks. All of us are learning the advantages of working from home and I have no doubt that, with proper investment, fresh employment opportunities in rural areas will arise from that, enabling people in rural areas to lead optimal lives with digital literacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put it.
I have pleasure in supporting all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, rural development programmes are extremely important and any delay in their implementation would be a very retrograde step. I support the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Addington on the shared prosperity fund and look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, also supports proper rural development and businesses to encourage young people and others to share in rural prosperity.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has, as usual, made a very powerful case for assisting farmers and the rural communities to deliver agricultural, food and environmental services. Living as I do in a rural area, but within easy reach of two market towns, I am painfully aware of the issues around the rural economy. With no single farm payment, some farmers on poor land will not survive. They depend on the wider rural economy. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, objects to Clause 16 being included in the Bill. I have listened to her arguments and can understand where she is coming from. Support for rural development is important; the Agriculture Bill may not be the perfect place to include this, but we have an opportunity to enshrine the rural economy and development in this Bill and ensure that those of us living in rural areas are considered in a more holistic way.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, pressed the case for locally produced goods and food, both through farmers’ markets and supermarkets. I fully support this, as it is extremely important to bring locally produced quality food to a much wider audience.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, have an amendment to add broadband connectivity and digital literacy to the list of support for rural communities. Farmers and their families need access to decent broadband to fill in the various forms and licences required to carry out their activities, and their children need access to complete homework and, currently, to take part in lessons. Going to McDonald’s to gain access to broadband is completely unacceptable. We have no access to 5G in my rural area. As someone who struggles with the strength of the broadband signal—or lack of it—and my own level of expertise, I can confirm that assistance with digital literacy is a vital element in improving connectivity. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this subject. Can I personally hold out any hope of better broadband connectivity in the near future?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments today and to all those who have stressed the need to maintain the equivalent of the social economic schemes under the rural development fund. I agree with the many other noble Lords who said that both the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made very compelling cases that underpin those arguments.
It is clear that, to have a thriving agricultural sector, we need a strong rural economy and infrastructure. We need to address the many social problems that are holding those developments back. We know that rural areas are characterised by higher levels of poverty, poorer health and social isolation. Young people in rural areas struggle to find good-quality training opportunities and are held back by poor public transport and the lack of affordable housing. Local businesses find it difficult to access finance and, as the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out, have huge difficulties with broadband connectivity. I agree very much with them that digital literacy can go a long way to tackling the digital divide. The opportunities to make rural areas great places to live and work are being squandered.
I was also interested in the question from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about whether local food activities such as outdoor markets could be eligible for rural funds. That gets around some of the arguments we have been having about whether production of food is a public good.
Much of the problem lies with the Government’s failure to adopt a joined-up approach to rural development, bringing together all the departments and agencies with responsibilities in this area. Although rural proofing partly addresses the problem, it is still not providing the funding and policy priority that rural communities deserve. Rural development funding remains just one aspect of the solution. Nevertheless, that funding has provided a vital lifeline for many local communities.
The current Clause 16, on support for rural development, is welcome in as far as it goes, but it leaves a great deal of the detail unspecified as so much is delegated to regulation. It therefore leaves a lot to trust—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I share the concern that funding could be lost without an equivalent funding regime in place. I also share noble Lords’ concern that we must have much greater assurance about access to the shared prosperity fund when the details become clearer.
I welcome the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which provides an opportunity for new socioeconomic programmes to help farming families. He has a great deal of expertise in that area and has made the case extremely well, so I do not intend to repeat it. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government do not intend to focus solely on agriculture in this Bill, without a plan to maintain a thriving social and economic infrastructure around it. A thriving rural community with a strong infrastructure and new economic opportunities is the bedrock of an agricultural system, but it will need appropriate funding.
I have not lined up a biblical reference, which seems to be the order of the day today, but I do pray that the Minister can spell out in detail the access to the different rural development funds that will be available as we leave the EU, and the timescales applicable to each of those funds. I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which goes to the heart of the rural economy and how rural communities play their essential part in it. I turn to Amendments 155, 156 and 157. Clause 16 provides for the continued payment of long-lasting Rural Development Programme for England agreements where they will extend well beyond the end of the current programme in 2020. This is needed because agri-environment and forestry agreements can last for many years. Some will still be active in the 2030s. The Bill does not deal with socioeconomic schemes, because these are short agreements and all payments will have been made by the time the EU rural development funding has been exhausted. Under the withdrawal agreement, Defra will continue to deliver the RDPE under the terms of the EU regulations. It therefore remains the case that all projects agreed under the RDPE will be fully funded for their lifetime. For multiyear agri-environment and forestry agreements, domestic funding will be used to honour commitments once EU funding ceases after programme closure.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and all noble Lords. The Government absolutely recognise the invaluable contribution that rural areas make to our national life, economically, socially and culturally, and are committed to supporting rural communities through post-EU exit funding and wider government initiatives. It is essential that future generations see a future in the countryside, in agriculture or in a wide range of other elements and components of the rural economy. I am minded of what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale said. I have experienced my first Zoom meetings with an agronomist and an arable contractor and so forth. Things that I never thought would happen are happening regularly, so I understand all these things.
A lot of the matters raised in this debate are dealt with separately from the Bill, and I will expand on that. As set out in our manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. As the Rural Affairs Minister, I do not identify with the commentary on rural-proofing from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who was helpful to us in revising the rural-proofing guidance. We have officials working to ensure that rural-proofing is entrenched in every department. We have been working extremely closely with the MHCLG, which leads on the development of the UK shared prosperity fund, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and the particular challenges faced by rural communities. Both departments have been engaging with rural stakeholders to support development of the evidence base around what rural communities and businesses need for the fund. Final decisions about the quantum and design of the fund will take place following the spending review.
My noble friend Lord Dundee spoke about relationships with supermarkets. Some noble Lords are keen on berating the supermarkets. When I spend time going around them, I look at the British produce and the relationship there often is with local farms. That important development of relationships with local produce is strong, whether in large retail outlets or small ones. Clause 1(2) could support productivity measures which could, for example, aid local food chains. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the consultation requirement, this clause will only amend existing schemes, not create new ones. We have already consulted on the changes to existing schemes, as part of the Health and Harmony consultation.
Beyond the scope of the Bill, the Government are already taking steps to ensure that our rural communities can prosper. In response to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, through the outside-in approach, as part of the future telecoms infrastructure review, we are supporting the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to the least commercially viable UK premises. We are already connecting some of the hardest-to-reach places in the country, including through the superfast broadband programme and the £20 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. We have announced £5 billion of public funding to close the digital divide and ensure that rural areas are not left behind. The Government are also working with mobile network operators to deliver mobile connectivity improvements through a shared rural network. I also highlight the Digital Skills Partnership, launched by DCMS in 2017, to bring together organisations from across the public, private and charity sectors to work together to close the digital skills gap at local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about 5G rollout in rural areas. The 5G Rural Connected Communities programme is looking at potential 5G test cases in rural areas. Through the Rural Connected Communities competition, the Government are funding up to 10 5G research and development projects to run over two years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about discussions between devolved Administrations and rural development. As all noble Lords know, rural development is devolved, but Defra officials meet counterparts in devolved Administrations to discuss rural policy and share experience.
Returning to digital, although the current rural development programme allows for support for broadband and digital skills, wider government initiatives are the main funding mechanisms for broadband connectivity and digital skills. These are delivered through DCMS, rather than Defra. The role played by me, as Minister for Rural Affairs, and the rural team at Defra, is to work closely with DCMS and, at ministerial level, make sure that there is a complete understanding of the fact that rural communities need to play their part in a modern economy, and of the need to improve that.
Clause 16 gives the power to continue making payments where agri-environment and forestry agreements have already been signed, using Exchequer funds once the EU rural development funding contribution has been exhausted. Without subsections (1), (2) and (5) of this clause, the Secretary of State will not have the powers required to continue making annual payments specified in existing agri-environment and forestry agreements, and farmers and land managers will not be compensated for the valuable benefits that they are delivering. Furthermore, without this clause it would be more difficult for agreement holders to move from a CAP scheme to new domestic schemes under the Bill. For example, subsection (3)(a) will allow agreement holders to terminate their agreements early if they successfully secure a place in an ELM scheme. The Government want to ensure that the environmental benefits delivered through these agreements are retained and built on as we move from the CAP to a new system of ELM, designed with farmers and land managers in mind.
The powers in subsection (3) of this clause facilitate the transfer of existing agri-environment and forestry agreement holders into new schemes operating under Clause 1, such as ELM or the simplified Countryside Stewardship scheme. For example, subsection (3)(c) could allow an existing environmental stewardship agreement holder who is managing a priority habitat to convert their agreement into a new domestic Countryside Stewardship agreement. Without subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Clause 16, we will be unable to pay farmers and land managers for the work they are undertaking, and we risk complicating the transition to ELM for land managers who are already participating in agri-environment schemes. We intend to offer domestic countryside stewardship agreements until 2024, at which point we want to ensure a smooth transition from both domestic Countryside Stewardship and EU agri-environment schemes into ELM.
I do understand and take on board all the points that have been made and our mutual desire to work to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund is up and running and successful. From a rural-proofing point of view it is imperative that the needs of rural interests, communities and business are taken into account. However, I do hope that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support for Amendments 155 to 157 and thank the noble Lords who tabled them and supported them. This debate and the questions have brought out the political impact of the relatively low number of votes in the countryside. We have seen just this morning, with the report on the distribution of the Government’s regeneration fund before the last election, how, since we do not have a rules-based system such as the EU’s whereby funds are distributed to the areas that are most disadvantaged and most in need, it very much depends on the Government’s view of where such money should go.
This debate has focused a lot on keeping what we have in the countryside: alternative businesses, non-farm businesses and alternative sources of revenue for farmers. But what is the Government’s vision for the countryside —where do they see money going, say, from the UK shared prosperity fund? Do the Government see the countryside as a place where there can be large numbers of new, growing, farming, food-producing businesses, and large numbers of good jobs—not simply pickers who are casual workers coming in for a couple of months and then going away again having lived in caravans, but people who can make their lives in the countryside? Is that the kind of vision of a horticulture-rich, healthy food-growing countryside—tying together many of our debates from last year—that the Government have?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the vision is for a prosperous rural economy, which obviously includes food production and agriculture. However, a whole range of communities form the rural economy. We want to ensure that all rural dwellers have the same opportunities. I have to say that very few industries have been promised that they will retain the same annual contribution from the taxpayer for the whole of this Parliament; sometimes noble Lords forget that in some of their commentary. That is most exceptional, and it shows that the Government support farmers and rural communities. That is of course why there is a very significant investment in the broadband structure. Therefore, there is a considerable vision for a prosperous, skilled and innovative agricultural sector within a broader rural economy.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his extensive response to this debate. When will he be able to tell us whether there will be a well-financed, ring-fenced rural fund as part of the shared prosperity fund? When will we know about that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am afraid that I cannot give a precise date other than what I said in my remarks, that the quantum and design of the fund will take place following the spending review; I cannot give any further detail. However, I can say that the efforts and the work of Defra with MHCLG are to ensure that there is a very strong rural component so that rural businesses are an intrinsic part of this fund.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have received one further request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to my Amendment 157. He referred to the £5 billion which was set in principle as a response from the Government to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. Can he tell the House what the pathway is for that in-principle commitment to be rolled out and an on-the-ground practical reality?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I say, the purpose of trying to start with an outside-in approach is precisely to ensure that rural areas and farms are connected—very often the village is connected but the outlying farms are not. That is where we want to ensure, in working with this £5 billion and the £200 million rural gigabit connectivity programme, that these are absolutely geared to ensure that rural areas are not left behind. I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as ever, courteous concluding remarks, and in particular his extensive comments on rural connectivity, which were enlightening. I am disappointed that we still lack detail on the UK shared prosperity fund and the Minister was unable to provide any enlightenment greater than what was given back in May. It has been a helpful debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contribution on this key issue of rural development. I particularly acknowledge the tireless work of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the subject of rural prosperity and the survival of farming households.
All noble Lords are well aware of the tremendous fragility of our rural economy and the many small rural businesses that are key local employers in areas of often desperate poverty and huge social deprivation. The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, have done well to highlight the issues of rural connectivity as key issues that have been so graphically shown during the lockdown. Might the Government consider following the lead of Northern Ireland, which I understand has sought to implement rural connectivity by connecting the furthest and hardest-to-reach properties first and not last? I hope that we can revisit these issues on Report but until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 158. I remind noble Lords 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.
Amendment 158
Lord Whitty
“Smallholdings estates
(1) Every smallholdings authority which, before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, holds any land for the purposes of smallholdings must—(a) review its smallholdings estate, and(b) before the period of 18 months beginning with the day Part 1 of this Act comes into force, submit to the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the future management of its land for the purposes of providing—(i) opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own account;(ii) education or experience in environmental land management practices for farmers, potential farmers and farm workers;(iii) opportunities for increasing public access to the natural environment and understanding of sustainable farming; and (iv) opportunities for innovation in sustainable land management practices.(2) No land held by a smallholdings authority immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to be conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of other than—(a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection (1), or(b) in accordance with the proposals submitted under subsection (1). (3) For the purposes of this section “smallholdings authority” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would limit the disposal of "county farms" by local authorities and would require local authorities to review their holdings and submit proposals for future management to provide opportunities to extend farming to new farmers, provide agricultural education and stimulate innovation.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, apropos of the discussion on the previous group of amendments, this is the first time I have contacted your Lordships from rural Dorset. The bandwidth and the stability of the internet connection appear to be somewhat suspect, so if I get cut off, your Lordships will understand.
This amendment is about introducing a new generation of farmers to our agricultural system. Much of the debate on the Bill has been about the outputs of farming: food, and the impact on the environment and the countryside. The key inputs into farming are of course the skill and enterprise of those who work the land, but we have heard very little about that in the debate. A subsequent amendment from my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch deals with the general improvement of the supply, quality and skill of labour in agriculture, which I will strongly support. However, this amendment is about getting people in who will run their own farms and who need to be given that opportunity.
I well remember when I was first made an Agriculture Minister—over 20 years ago now—and I was told that the average age of English farmers was about 59; I was slightly younger at that point, but not a lot. I was slightly shocked at that, but then I was told that this was always the case, because you either inherited your land from your father or your uncle or you had to save up enough money to buy the land. Another way in was provided from the beginning of the last century by many rural counties, which established tenancies directly for young farmers who could not afford to enter in the normal way through inheritance or purchase. It was a successful scheme, and it continued and was reinforced after the Second World War. However, from the 1980s, there was a drastic fall in the number of tenancies and the acreage covered by such tenancies almost halved. We sped it up a bit around 2000 but in the last 10 years, as a recent report by the CPRE shows, there has been a further 10% decline in the areas covered by county tenancies.
This is a crucial way in, yet some of our proud rural counties have drastically reduced the acreage covered by county tenancies. These include counties such as Herefordshire, Somerset, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and some counties, such as Northumberland, Northamptonshire and Lancashire, appear from the figures not to have any county tenancies nowadays. Even my own adopted county of Dorset—whose internet connection is not great—has also capped its tenancy by 10% over the last 10 years. This is pretty disastrous in terms of getting new blood into managing farms and running their own farms.
My amendment is quite modest, but it would require those counties with such smallholdings to review the situation and not to dispose of any such holdings except for the purposes similar to the objectives of the county farm tenancies. That would require each county to work out a new strategy, discuss it with Defra, continue to provide support for those tenancies that existed and, hopefully, resume providing further tenancies.
I was heartened at the end of the previous day of the Committee stage when the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, indicated that there will be some support for county farms as a result of the new agricultural system. I have yet to see any details of that, but it would be important to improve availability for rural young farmers, or indeed urban people who wish to get into farming, if the county scheme could be revived or, at the very least, stopped from declining further. An objective assessment by the counties and Defra would reinstate tenancies and start increasing the amounts of such tenancies that are available, which should help to herald a new future in farming for those who desperately want to run their own farm and improve the environment at the same time. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, within this grouping I support Amendment 158, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others, which sets out to enable new entrants to county farms, to provide education in farming these holdings and to stimulate innovation within them.
I am also in favour of Amendment 246, in the names of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others, which suggests that landlords should contract longer farm business tenancies.
I also support my noble friend’s Amendment 237, which would enable tenants to object to a landlord’s possible refusal of consent to enter financial assistance schemes.
I come to Amendment 159 in my name. This proposed new clause would encourage agricultural smallholdings in areas close to towns and cities. In terms of the Bill, there are a number of advantages.
The first is consistency with the Government’s commitment to building houses where people want to live. Many would like to live in the countryside; however, very often this is not possible due to planning constraints and the high costs to applicants of gaining permission. The proposed new clause would allow for the development of affordable green homes arising from government incentives to local authorities for that purpose. Local authorities might then incentivise the private sector to invest in this type of endeavour. Along with other locations, green-belt sites could be used. Since we are considering agricultural smallholdings, these would not be subject to current urban restrictions applying to green belts.
Secondly, the developments would be combined smallholding, home and work spaces. Residents would have two occupations: farming some land; and working from home. An example might have 30 houses and 180 acres of farmland, thus 6 acres per unit. A typical occupant might farm vegetables in polytunnels while also working part-time as an IT consultant via high-speed internet. Post coronavirus, two interconnected trends have emerged: a greater demand for property in the countryside and a growing potential of being able to work from home. The proposals outlined thus fit in with those new demands in facilities.
Thirdly, the projects, as envisaged, would provide fresh, high-quality produce to local urban markets, thus strengthening the United Kingdom’s food security, while assisting government aims for the countryside by increasing opportunities for rural employment.
Fourthly, in connection with this Bill, the farming methods adopted by these smallholdings would qualify to benefit from this financial assistance for the purposes detailed in Clause 1. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can support this proposal.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I am generally supportive of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and their desire to get younger farmers on to the land. This is crucial to improving diversity and productivity and is generally crucial to the health of the farming industry.
However, I oppose Clause 34 and the entirety of Schedule 3 standing part of the Bill. This is not because I think that agricultural tenancy reform is not much needed; rather, it is far too important an issue to be addressed in a simple schedule to this complex Bill. It must not be treated as an afterthought. In these constipated proceedings, we simply do not have time to do justice to agricultural tenancy reform. I have barely had the capacity to consider the provisions in Schedule 3; perhaps this proposal is aimed at sparing me and your Lordships the time of doing so.
I was horrified to learn that the average length of modern agricultural tenancy is just three years. This is the worst possible thing for the environment. For all our days of effort to define and incorporate a variety of public goods and worthy causes under Clause 1, probably the best thing we can do for the environment is simply adjust the term of agricultural tenancies from three years upwards towards 10. There is simply no way a farmer can commit the resources to maintain his or her natural capital, such as soils, hedges and trees, when he or she has only a three-year term and the bank that is financing the business needs to see a commercial return within that short timeframe.
I also keep in mind the excellent work of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG—whose final report to Defra made wide-ranging and sweeping recommendations for agricultural tenancy reform. Schedule 3 is a wholly inadequate response to that. Many will say that we should take what we can by way of primary legislation in this area, as the chance does not come along too often. However, I would resist that and reiterate that this far too important an issue to be resolved by Schedule 3 alone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 222 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for putting his name to it.
The community infrastructure levy, known as the CIL, was introduced in 2010—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Baroness’s connection is very bad. If she does not mind, we will leave her for a moment to try to get the connection back up and I will call her later. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I have some sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I have tried to use my best judgment to amend the Bill as it stands. Amendment 223 builds on the work, as the noble Earl pointed out, of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, just to ensure that the amendments put forward by TRIG can be implemented in a timely manner.
I turn to other amendments in my name and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell of Hartington Mandeville and Lady Northover, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lady Rock for lending their support to these. Amendment 237 also has a complementary one for Wales. It makes a straightforward change to require the Government to bring forward necessary regulations to allow an agricultural tenant to refer to arbitration any unreasonable refusal from the landlord following a request by the tenant to join a scheme developed under the financial assistance provisions. Let me say at the outset that there are plenty of examples of good relations between landlords and tenants; the amendment deals only with circumstances where they are perhaps less good. I think it fair to say that tenant farmers are rightly concerned about their ability to access new public payments for public goods in light of their tenancy agreements and some of the restrictive clauses they contain. I hope the Government will give an assurance in that regard.
Amendment 238 closes a potential loophole in the Bill regarding the consent of the landlord, which the tenant is required to obtain before entering a financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Bill contains a relatively narrow set of criteria which has to be in place, but envisages providing the tenant with the option to object only where the tenancy agreement or legislation governing the tenancy relationship between the landlord and the tenant restricts the tenant’s ability to participate without the landlord’s consent. Currently, the situation would not be covered by the provisions in this part of the Bill. This amendment seeks to address that by ensuring that all refusals by a landlord are referable by the tenant to arbitration on the grounds of reasonableness. I hope my noble friend will see that that is very modest ask.
Amendment 239 again concerns the landlord’s consent. This and Amendment 238 would together address issues around unreasonable restrictions within tenancy agreements that prevent farm tenants investing in their holdings to carry out activities or improvements which assist with the productivity or sustainability of the holding. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, three years being the standard tenancy is simply not conducive to the investment that I personally would like to see. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment. Again, it is a suggestion put forward by TRIG and I hope my noble friend will make sure that tenancy agreements contain reasonable clauses that would make an appeal against an unreasonable refusal from landlords easier.
Amendment 240 addresses the definition of “diversification activity” and would extend it to activities that, although by nature not deemed to be agricultural, horticultural or arboricultural, enhance and complement the use of the holding for those purposes. Again, the intention is not to create a complete free-for-all but simply to give the tenant certainty of provision. I would hope that it is reasonable to allow farm tenants to have access to the means to carry out reasonable farm diversification activities without the landlord’s unreasonable refusal disallowing them from doing so.
Amendment 244 also has a similar one for Wales and, taken together, they seek to enhance the franchise of individuals who are able to apply for succession of a tenancy for the limited number of tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 that continue to have rights of succession. This is simply looking to extend the current franchise that includes husbands, wives, civil partners, sons, daughters, individuals brought up in farm families and treated as children of the marriage or civil partnership, and brothers and sisters of the deceased or retiring tenant. Crucially, the list of potential successors does not include the grandchild, nephew or niece of the deceased or retiring tenant; nor does it include children from a cohabiting partner of the deceased or retiring tenant. This amendment seeks to plug that gap. Again, this was considered by TRIG, so I hope my noble friend will look favourably upon it.
Amendment 245 looks to ensure that tenant farmers in England are not locked out of new government public payments for public goods schemes, or schemes that provide support for productivity. The Bill already recognises the difficulty tenant farmers occupying under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 might have in gaining consent from their landlords, due to the nature of their tenancy agreements, but leaves tenants occupying under farm business tenancies regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 fully exposed to the whims of their landlords, without a legislative backstop. I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment. Tenant farmers want to play their full part in these schemes, which enhance the environment, landscapes and animal welfare, and I am sure that, through the good offices of my noble friend, that can be achieved. It is important to say that when this was considered in Committee in another place, it was voted down on the basis that farm business tenancies are shorter term; however, this misunderstands the nature of the marketplace for letting land and I am sure my noble friend will take a much more considerate view.
Finally, I come to Amendment 246. As with the amendment to the franchise for tenancy succession, this amendment was also considered by the Defra-sponsored Tenancy Reform Industry Group. It is part of the Government’s policy to encourage longer-term farm business tenancies. It is important to note that the average length of a farm business tenancy in England and Wales is less than four years, and 90% of all agricultural tenancies are let for a period of only five years or less. Such short-term agreements are inadequate to allow farm tenants to invest in and profit from these holdings and to have the freedom to take part in agri-environment schemes. This amendment would make the changes necessary in this regard.
I hope my noble friend will consider these amendments vital, putting all tenants on an equal footing and enabling them to benefit in the same way that landlords would hope to benefit from these schemes.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to attach my name to Amendment 158, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The tenant farming sector is hugely important in the United Kingdom. Some 30% of all agricultural land is tenanted. I have long been concerned about the future of the county farms estate. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, many have been disposed of, including in my own county of Northumberland. Indeed, in conjunction with the Tenant Farmers Association, I wrote a report in, I think, 2007 on this topic.
Many of the farms that remain under the ownership of local authorities are no longer smallholdings. Of course, it is important that farms of different sizes are available to let to tenants. I speak as someone who started farming in 1971 as a tenant on a relatively small mixed farm in Northumberland. We had then what we called a farming ladder: it was possible to start small and, through hard work and sound business skills, gradually move on to larger farms. The model worked really well and provided an entry into farming for those from outside established farming businesses. New blood is crucial for any industry sector, and certainly for farming. Many of today’s successful farming families started small and have built impressive rural businesses as a consequence.
County farms are clearly owned by local authorities, but, as I said in the aforementioned report, they are a national asset and should be retained. Too often, local authorities have taken short-term decisions to dispose of their landholdings to plug an annual funding gap without, in my view, considering seriously the strategic importance of these assets. There are innovative ways in which these estates, in partnership and in conjunction with their tenants, could provide a wide range of key services such as local food markets, educational access and other public services—including, potentially, energy generation—to try to ensure they are financially viable, as indicated in this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I was about to call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but do we have the noble Baroness, Lady Young, back with us?
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
We do indeed. I shall speak to Amendment 222 in my name. I feel, at this precise moment, like having a rant about the inadequacies of rural broadband, but I shall restrain myself. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for supporting Amendment 222.
The community infrastructure levy was introduced in 2010. Some local planning authorities apply it to new agricultural buildings, but some do not. Agricultural buildings are often required for things such as housing livestock or storing grain, and new buildings are often driven by changes in regulations on animal welfare or food safety standards; or, they may enable business growth or productivity. These things will be important in the new agricultural world we are envisaging in the Bill. New agricultural buildings, however, are not like commercial buildings or housing developments, which are built by investors for immediate profit by selling or letting. Farmers have to stump up for the CIL payment, which can be tens of thousands of pounds, for loans they have taken out to construct a building, and they add to the servicing costs of loans—a direct cost on the farm business.
We are, in the Bill, seeing an environment where farming businesses will need to invest in an innovative way to improve their competitiveness and productivity. The CIL charge for new farm buildings risks inhibiting such investment. It is even more complicated in the current position, because some planning authorities, as I said, choose to levy the CIL on new farm buildings, and some do not, so there is an uneven playing field across the country, for a farming industry that supplies national and global firms. I can imagine the conversations with the supermarkets if you tried to tell them about your CIL charge when they are pressing down on costs across industry as a whole.
We need to bear in mind what the CIL was intended to do; it was a charge to fund local facilities, infrastructure and services to meet increased pressures that new developments often cause. Agricultural buildings are often large in size, so they attract a higher CIL, but low in impact on community infrastructure and services. Cows do not really need social services or want enhanced transport routes. Agricultural buildings are clearly defined in planning laws, so there is no danger of this becoming a creeping extension to any exemption, and there is clear evidence that imposing the CIL discourages investment in these farm businesses. So, this amendment would enable the Government to help farm businesses when they are facing what will, by all accounts, be very uncertain times as a result of the major changes in the agricultural support system. I hope the Minister might see his way to supporting this amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about less than five years being far too short for average farm tenancies if we are to succeed with a comprehensive agri-environment scheme. I also agree with him that accepting half a loaf now may not lead to the other half appearing; I think we all ought to understand, in this House, how that works. I am very grateful for Tony Blair’s willingness to accept half a loaf all those years ago.
My interest in this group is in Amendment 242. I am not an agricultural tenancy specialist; I come at this from an education point of view. Subsection 11(3) is an odd bit of legislation. It abolishes a large chunk of Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is full of definitions—I cannot, for the life of me, understand how we can do without them, but presumably it all fits in with the rest of the Bill. The bit that we are left with is a restatement, effectively, of one bit of Part 1 of Schedule 6, which governs the interface between the successor to a tenancy and that successor going off and learning their trade at an agricultural college. But it says that you are allowed only three years, and a lot of modern level 6 courses in agricultural colleges now last four years, because they—quite rightly—incorporate a year’s experience.
Today, I listened to the Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, urging universities to be much more flexible and offer structures that are part-time, modular and akin to continuous professional development over many years. Looking to the future, therefore, the answer is not my amendment, but to remove the time restriction from this clause entirely. A successor to a tenancy ought to be allowed to have been studying their craft, and it ought not to matter where and in what pattern they have been doing that, particularly when we are currently urging such institutes of education to offer a much wider variety of ways in which agricultural education can be obtained. We ought not to be stuck in the past in this clause.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about connectivity. The problem is not just in rural areas; it is here too, in suburban Middlesex. However, I am even more relieved that the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment 222 before I did, because she is much more eloquent than I am, and it is something I support.
With regard to the community infrastructure levy, it is of interest that, since 2009, only one local authority has carried out a viability assessment on whether agricultural buildings can afford to pay the CIL. This assessment concluded that the local authority should pay the farmer to build a new farm building.
At a time when the Government are looking at all sorts of innovative ways to cut out red tape and so forth in the planning area—I may have concerns about them if they impinge on environmental interests—we should make sure that we give those in the agricultural industry a fair deal on these properties. After all, they will not be used for profit in the same way that an extension would be, or in any other ways. I support what the noble Baroness said, and I hope the Minister will take note.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have great joy in very warmly supporting this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The future economic prospects for Britain and the great changes to our way of living and our society that may become necessary only emphasise the urgency of what he is talking about.
I live in rural Cumberland, right up in a valley, where an unwelcome social development is becoming very obvious. Farming, and hill farming in this instance, is increasingly done by elderly people who find it more and more difficult to cope. Consequently, the land gets bought up and concentrated in the ownership of a few people, very often living far away.
Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment has wider implications and challenges beyond what he is specifically talking about. I think it would be nothing but good for British society if more young people who wanted to become involved in farming had that opportunity. Too often, you hear of people who would like to be in farming but cannot afford to get into the system as it has emerged, and who are looking for small, manageable farms.
It is also true that, as we are taking a balanced diet and all the rest so seriously, we may need to concentrate far more on a variety of farming which lends itself to producing varied diets and to the self-sustaining approach to agriculture. For these reasons, I am very glad to support my noble friend.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, this is a near-perfect group of amendments, and the Government would do well to pick all of them up. It is certainly good luck that your Lordships’ House has so many very talented people who can help the Government to improve the Bill.
Reforming agricultural tenancies and giving greater protection for tenants and their families would help give the security needed to take a long-term view as a guardian of the land, make beneficial investments and work the land to its fullest potential. The county farm amendments are also brilliant and should be encouraged in order to bring more enthusiastic entrants into the agricultural sector. I echo the dismay of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that county farms are being sold off; I am sure he knows that his adopted county of Dorset has recently sold six county farms.
Alongside smallholdings, I ask the Minister how he sees the provision of allotments in improving our food security, resilience and health. There is a huge underprovision of allotments in this country, with multi-year waiting lists. I confess that I am a very keen allotment holder—I do not think my nails will ever be the same again after this lockdown—so I know how wonderful they are and encourage the Minister to include allotments in Government plans for our food systems. A housing estate should not be built these days without some sort of allotment close by so that people can get out, grow food and get their hands dirty.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, last week the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was pleased to support what I said about the sequestration of greenhouse gases. This week, I am very pleased to support him on what he said about upland farmers and the concern that a number of them are going bankrupt and their land is becoming part of larger holdings, which is altering the nature of the countryside. It is not just the small upland farms that are under pressure. Small lowland and small family farms are under pressure throughout the UK, and there is now an inevitable drift towards bigger farms, more contracting and fewer tenancies—that is a sad thing.
Amendment 159 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee is an interesting proposal. It would be a very good way to start development on green-belt land adjacent to towns, but what happens when the idealistic thoughts of smallholdings do not become viable or the owners cannot cope, and the whole area turns into “horsey culture”? This is not good for biodiversity or the land. One sees an enormous amount of potentially good land being ruined by horses because the land is not properly maintained. It takes a great amount of extra work to keep land where horses are kept, on a small acreage, in good health.
I have put my name to Amendments 237, 238 and 246. I support Amendment 246 because I would like to see longer farm tenancies. This an important part of the structure of farming in the United Kingdom, and in England in particular. That is what the Bill is about, and I would like to see this amendment in the Bill.
I support Amendment 238 because it has the interesting additional wording of “full and efficient farming”. This comes back to our discussions on Clause 1, because there is a push from the Government to turn much of our agricultural land into recreational theme parks, whereas this amendment is geared to making certain that the land is farmed in a proper and efficient manner.
I have spoken before of my concern that tenants sometimes do not get a fair deal: because of their tenancy agreement, woodland, streams and things like that are often excluded, particularly from old Agricultural Holding Act tenancies. This hampers the ability of the tenant to carry out full farm biodiversity and restricts the amount that a tenant can diversify.
Looking to the future, what will happen under ELMS tiers 2 and 3? What happens if a tenant is attracted by a scheme under tier 2, or perhaps is included in the ambit of a tier 3 scheme, which involves inappropriate public access? What is the situation for the landlord in these circumstances? The land might be the landlord’s asset, and he might in due course wish to take that land in hand when the tenancy agreement comes to an end. If the tenant takes part in an ELM scheme which includes public access that depreciates the value of that land in the longer term—undoubtedly the public access will become a common established right over time, if not immediately—is the landlord consulted in a tier 3 scheme? Does the landlord have a right of refusal under the proposals that the Minister has in mind that we do not know about?
There are a lot of questions here that need digging into and explaining. I supported these amendments because the tenant should be not only encouraged but treated fairly when they have a holding.
Baroness Rock [V]
My Lords, again I declare my interests as a director of a tenant farming enterprise. I support Amendment 237 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 238 and 243 to 246. I welcome the clear intention to ensure that tenants are not excluded from financial assistance schemes.
Amendment 238 seeks only to ensure that all potential circumstances that could arise for a tenant to need their landlord’s consent are covered. Some schemes, by their nature, require tenants to seek the consent of their landlords, regardless of legislation or their contracts of tenancy. Those individuals would not be able to use the provisions of this legislation to object to a landlord’s refusal, in those circumstances. This amendment merely extends the opportunity for reasonable objection to apply to any and all situations where the landlord’s consent is required. The amendment is not seeking to expand the remit of the legislation beyond what the Government intend, just to ensure that no one is left out of being able to use this provision.
I welcome the provisions of Schedule 3, in particular those allowing tenants to object to a landlord’s refusal to grant consent to enter a financial assistance scheme, but the exclusion of farm business tenants is a mistake. By their short-term nature, restrictive terms and high levels of rent, FBTs deserve the protection of this legislation. Over time, FBTs will become the major way in which non-landowners become farmers, and it is important that the legislative basis for their occupation is secure. As the Government rightly move towards a new mechanism to support farm productivity gains and public goods, it would be tragic if FBTs had no recourse against unreasonable landlords who refuse consent for them to be part of that new direction of travel.
I recognise that there is a balance between ensuring that we do not disincentivise landlords and ensuring that tenants have sufficient opportunities to take part in new schemes. However, given the restrictive terms of many FBTs and the lack of impetus to improve them in the marketplace, the balance should rightly ensure fair scheme access for all tenants.
While it is government policy to ensure long-term FBTs, it is disappointing that the Bill does not contain the provisions to assist with this that were proposed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG— which formed part of the Government’s consultation. Amendment 246 rectifies this. The marketplace does not currently deliver a sufficient number of long-term FBTs and the Government could do more to promote their use. These provisions should provide comfort to landlords who have to deal with tenants who breach the terms of the agreements or when land is required back for non-agricultural use, planning consent for change of use having been obtained. While these new provisions will have direct benefit for landlords, who are prepared to let for longer periods, they will provide indirect benefit to the tenanted sector as a whole, by providing scope for a greater degree of longer-term tenancies.
Finally, on Amendments 243 and 244, many successful businesses are family enterprises, no more so than in agriculture. Tenancy succession provisions ensure the longevity of farming businesses, and it is right that there should be eligibility criteria for who can succeed to a tenancy. Other bits of the Bill speak to that issue. One area that is limiting for many farm businesses with succession rights is the close relative test. Often it is nephews, nieces and grandchildren who are involved in the farm, rather than the children of the retiring or deceased tenant. It is important to recognise that these wider members of a family farm may be the most appropriate individuals to succeed. This issue was considered by TRIG and formed part of the Government’s consultation on agricultural tenancies.
The tenanted sector is responsible for farming at least one-third of the agricultural area of England and Wales. We must ensure that tenant farmers are able to participate fully in schemes to contribute to the future of farming.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and to echo many of the sentiments she expressed on Amendment 246, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has attached her name. I will speak briefly to Amendments 158 and 159. Amendment 158 is on county farms, which is something that we have heard discussed broadly, its importance stressed by many sides, so I will not detain the Committee on that.
I want particularly to address Amendment 159, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This in many ways addresses the question I put to the Minister after the previous group of amendments. Do we perceive our countryside as a place where we can see a growth of a different kind of business and economy—strong local economies, rich communities of small independent businesses producing food and providing services for those businesses? The vision set out by the noble Earl in this amendment reflects some very exciting work that is being done in Wales. We are seeing exciting experiments and developments in the devolved Administrations that could be transferred to England. That is the idea of One Planet Living: that it is possible to create developments that meet our environmental, social and economic goals and are different from what has gone before, which may not increase the concentration of land ownership, but may create opportunities for small independent landowners, businesses, tenants and people to operate different kinds of businesses, in different ways.
I do not need to tell your Lordships that land ownership in England is incredibly concentrated. We have a situation in which half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. If we were to share the land of England around the whole population, everyone would get half an acre each. In the light of Covid-19, we may see that people wish to explore different ways of living, different kinds of businesses, different ways to work and support themselves, and different ways to work in communities. This amendment is an exciting possibility and way of doing that. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the Committee to my farming interests in Suffolk, as in the register. I will speak to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I support what she has said, but will take it wider. The community infrastructure levy was originally introduced in around 2010, when, as she explained, it was intended to be a reasonably small contribution towards any infrastructure implications, primarily of developing housing.
Unfortunately, the levy has recently been seen—inevitably perhaps—as a means for strapped local authorities to raise funds directly. There seems to be little control or constraint on what local authorities can do with CILs. I think the Government should look at this closely, because recently, and certainly in the part of Suffolk I am from, they have increased them as much as 10 times. At the same time, the big housing developers often bargain their way out of making any contribution at all.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have not spoken since a week last Thursday, perhaps I should my declare interest as a member of a family farming business in which I worked for over 45 years before coming to the House. The business celebrated its centenary last year but perhaps noble Lords do not know that my interest in this group of amendments stems from the fact that the business was founded by my grandfather, a Londoner returning from World War I, on a Crown colony—a 10-acre smallholding in Holbeach Marsh. We now own and farm 200 times this acreage and, I hope, provide evidence of the important steps on the ladder and the key provision of smallholdings.
This Bill does not pretend to be a wholesale review of the law relating to land ownership and tenancy but, as my noble friend the Minister has said, it makes some pragmatic and uncontroversial changes with which I believe the House will agree. In the meantime, the principle purpose of the Bill and the reason why we need it in good time, is the payment of financial assistance following Brexit through the environmental land management scheme. The thrust of the Bill is the building of a progressive and productive agriculture and horticulture system fit for the post-Covid 19 age. It also seeks to provide the nation with a countryside that is naturally and environmentally sensitive—objectives that are not incompatible or contradictory.
However, there will be changes, and we need to encourage the occupation of land by farmers and growers who can implement them. Making a success of ELM depends very much on the details of the scheme and the uptake by the industry—making sure that the scheme’s incentives work is wrapped up in the ownership and occupation of the land. Can my noble friend say what discussions there have been with interested parties on this matter and what the timetable is for any conclusion?
Perhaps I can be forgiven for also asking about cropping licences, which are very important in areas such as mine. Crop specialisation is part of a local scene and provides much of the impulse of industry locally. Not only do the licences make sense, they provide steps on the ladder for the farmers of tomorrow and enable established companies to work with neighbours for effective rotation. It is not a tenancy but a short-term licence. At the moment, by agreement, the financial assistance is paid to the long-term occupier of the land. This is as it should be. Can my noble friend assure me that the intention under the Bill is that this will continue?
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, when I first saw the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I was very supportive of the concept of providing a bottom rung for aspiring farmers. After all, who would not want to help young men and women into one of the most noble of professions? Then, I started thinking about it and gradually became more sceptical about its premise and, worried about my scepticism—which is not a normal frame of mind for me—I spoke to various members of the farming community from around the country, including the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I am afraid to say that even after these conversations—or mostly because of them—and in spite of the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, my scepticism was not entirely removed.
In my experience, and that of others, the smallholder estates have lost their way from their original successful purposes. Their heyday, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, just mentioned, was after the First World War when they grew enormously and provided rural sanctuary and livelihoods for soldiers returning from the front. In Somerset, where I used to live, a whole estate near us was given to the nation for this purpose. Since then the farms have continued to provide sanctuary and livelihoods for many aspiring farmers.
More recently, over the past 30 years or so, I have been conscious that the occupants of these farms have been getting older and older. They can almost be described as being trapped on their smallholdings. The old form of tenancy that lasts for ever has resulted in these once-young families turning into grandparents on holdings that are now too small to provide a decent living. Some have survived because the children have been enterprising and converted buildings into workshops, farm shops and even playschools; but most survive by family members going out and getting wages in the wider rural economy, so that the family and the old man who is the tenant can survive on the land. Rarely these days is the tenant a young, aspiring farmer on the first rung of the farming ladder. One of the problems, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is that the next rung on the ladder is almost impossible to find or afford, so the old tenants have simply remained on that bottom rung.
You have to ask yourself, if you were a county council with farming assets of some £40 million, £50 million or more, would you use them just to keep 20 or 30 farmers on the land, often for the rest of their lives, or would you sell that land and invest the money to help a far greater number of your wider constituents? That would be a very unimaginative approach.
I turn to Amendment 159, from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Why not use these estates as a model example of what can be done with land and landed assets to make them really work for the people of your county? As his amendment hints, why not create small businesses on them? Create affordable housing or sheltered accommodation. Create allotments. Create environmental havens and biodiversity in a way that the locals can see and appreciate. Create innovative products using food, timber or textiles. Hold competitions for suggestions for new ways to use the land. Yes, also have some farm tenancies—strictly time-limited to, say, 10 to 12 years—that provide that essential bottom rung of the farming ladder for young families.
Having, as noble Lords will see, overcome my scepticism—thank goodness—I am now certain that these county council estates should be kept and survive, but they need a new purpose in life, new blood and new ideas, with more imagination as to how they can truly serve their electorate. I am very supportive of Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Earl.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I take great pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and his words of wisdom. I apologise for the discourtesy of pulling out of the last group because of a meeting of the EU Committee, but I agree with my noble friend the Minister about the invaluable contribution of rural communities and the vital importance of the various strands of work to accelerate digital connectivity on farms and in rural areas.
I wish briefly to express my concern with Amendments 223 and 237 to 246 on landlord-tenant issues. Some are more worrying than others. We need to be clear about how the landlords’ and tenants’ interests will be handled under ELMS and other schemes, but we need to be very careful. Those of us old enough to remember the introduction of hereditary tenancies by the Labour Government in the 1970s—without consultation, I may add—remember the devastating effect on the supply of tenanted land. The apparent attempt in Amendments 243 and 244 to widen this principle to less-close relatives is misguided. It is like trying to keep rents low by fixing them, then being surprised when the supply of housing dries up. I find it amazing that these amendments try to extend the hereditary principle in new areas. I thought the trend was to reduce it in modern Britain. In any case, the associated interference in the laws of property would be unjustified.
Moreover, I am highly dubious about trying to cover the detail in this already gargantuan Bill. Tenancy reform beyond the proposals already in the Bill should be the subject of separate legislation and preferably of parliamentary scrutiny in draft.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am listening in to a fascinating discussion and points in relation to tenant farms and smallholdings. I certainly found the arguments and proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, very convincing.
Amendment 222 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, falls exactly within the scope of the intent and purpose of this legislation. It fits in with government changes in relation to the planning regime that attempt to kick-start building and the economy across the country.
Ever since the unwise proposals and legislation of the community infrastructure levy pushed through by George Osborne, it has been bedevilled conceptually by being flawed in its very attempts to put money into local authority infrastructure and has repeatedly led to people withdrawing from potential small-scale developments. In essence, the CIL has shifted the market even more towards the large housebuilder and the large developer. It has had a particularly devastating effect on small businesses and the householder who wishes to do something with either a small business or a small piece of land.
When it comes to agriculture, I echo concerns previously raised that conversion of farm buildings is absurdly hit by CIL money-raking by local authorities. When I first exposed it, in challenging George Osborne in the House of Commons—I got some changes over a period of two years—we had local authorities seeking extraordinary amounts from single properties. The maximum I could evidence was £178,000 in taxation to be paid in advance for a single property development. Even with that lowered to more manageable amounts and a requirement for an affordability test, the CIL prevents the microentrepreneur—the person who wishes to move with small amounts of finance—progressing. The demands by local authorities for the CIL to be paid up front is particularly pernicious. The level of the CIL is particularly anti-entrepreneurial.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I support the proposal in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to remove Clause 34 and Schedule 3 covering agricultural tenancy provisions. I agree wholeheartedly with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
As drafted, the clause is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring, in that—despite the important work of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—the prospective legislative reform is not balanced and reflective of both parties’ interests, and runs the risk of damaging relationships and increasing anxiety and uncertainty. Although I welcome some of the proposals of Schedule 3—such as the removal of the minimum retirement age of 65 from AHA tenants, the widening of the pool of arbitrators and the paragraph to protect both tenant and landlord in new investment—others are more contentious.
In particular, I welcome the introduction of a strengthened condition of suitability for those succeeding to a tenancy, but the detail has not been agreed by the industry and should not be left unclear. Until the regulations are drafted, landowners cannot be certain whether the “improvement” suggested will diminish the effect of the loss of the commercial unit test. Neither is it clear how landowners’ interests are protected in the assessment of reasonableness.
The NFU has welcomed the reforms but also urges that other reforms under discussion at TRIG, such as landlords’ consent on variation of terms under the tenancy Act, are taken forward. Please could the Minister consider separate legislation on tenancy reform, rather than rushing it through as part of the Agriculture Bill? The issues are different, and it is clear from this Bill that what is proposed is only a first step and lacks detail. TRIG has been united on supporting landlord-tenant relationships, and this should be built on.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this large group of amendments—and, indeed, large group of speakers—concentrates on new entrants into farming. I have added my name to Amendments 237 and 245. My noble friend Lady Northover has added her name to Amendments 241 and 244 but, due to unforeseen circumstances, is not able to be present this evening.
At Second Reading, many of your Lordships spoke in favour of ensuring that the passage of new entrants is facilitated. The move from direct payments under the CAP to ELMS is likely to see some of our more seasoned farmers deciding to leave the land to retire or to move on to other, less strenuous occupations. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others have spoken against the community infrastructure levy being applied to new farm buildings, and I support her amendment.
It will be vital to encourage younger, more energetic men and women to enter the profession. Some will be the sons and daughters of existing farmers and able to take on the family farms. Others will be graduates from agricultural colleges who have always had an interest in the land and farming. All will need help, support and encouragement. The supply of those not inheriting farms will be an essential element of success. Without land, you cannot farm.
Given the very short timeframes of the average farm tenancy, as relayed to us by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, do the Government see larger landowners making some of their land available for new entrants?
Many county councils have been forced to sell some of their farms to raise money for other capital projects, and local authority funding is, as ever, problematic. I know from my own county experience that these farms come in a variety of sizes, from very small starter farms to large move-on holdings, but they are rarely very large holdings. For some, the starter units give a flavour of what is involved, but they are not always large enough for them to make a living. The role of the county farm estate is to give a helping hand to those starting out. Some tenants will stay until they need to retire; others will wish to move on to larger farms in other areas. Whatever their wish, the Bill needs to facilitate this.
On Thursday, we heard of the valuable contribution that prosperous landowners with huge holdings are making to the debates in this House. However, I believe that it is the smaller farmers—especially those on the edge, such as hill farmers and those on less productive soil—who need our special consideration. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that a three-year tenancy is completely inadequate. Farming is a long-term business, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, made a powerful case for tenancies to be set at 10 years to allow a continuity of supply of starter farms.
Tenant farmers are potentially at the mercy of landlords. It is therefore important for them to be able to access funds and not to be dependent on what the landlord says. For example, there are cases where a landlord hopes to get planning permission and does not want the commitment of a grant attached to the land, especially if it lasts for a particular length of time. Sadly, on some occasions, although not all, they would rather their tenant went under than have a constraint preventing them obtaining planning permission. I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on this amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, believes that the conversion of redundant farm buildings to homes is good, but we must be sure that the buildings are indeed redundant and that the farmer is not looking to make more money by converting them into dwellings.
It is important that tenants are protected from a landlord’s refusal to consent to enter into financial assistance schemes. It is for the tenant farmer to decide what he or she wishes for their farm. Can the Minister confirm that landlords will be prevented from blocking their tenants’ aspirations? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, gave an example of the farming ladder. The ELM schemes need to work. Cropping licences are an important part of the local economy. This is a short-term licence, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The terms of inheriting farms are very different from those of other enterprises. Children grow up on farms and it is in their blood. They have developed skills throughout the years. They might not be the sons or daughters of the farmer; they might be the nephews, nieces or grandchildren. Should the farmer die suddenly, as has been the case with three of the farms in the village where I live, members will want to take over the farmer’s tenancy. I note the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to this amendment. Often landlords will be keen for this to happen, with continuity being provided. Immediate family might not be in a position to take on the tenancy, and nor might they wish to do so, but other family members of tenant farmers might absolutely want to carry on the farming tradition, having already invested a large part of their lives in the tenant farm. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke of the selling off of hill farms to those living away from the land, with it not being farmed in the way intended but often being used as pony paddocks.
As has been said, the average age of a farmer is now over 60, and this is very concerning. We have to make sure that young farmers are able to get started. Given that it is almost impossible for someone without independent means to buy land or to borrow enough from a bank, as predicted profits are so limited, unpredictable and long-term, a tenancy is the only way to provide for young farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave a very powerful example of how elderly farmers are trapped on county farms that are no longer capable of providing a living. Diversification and new ideas are important so that these farms can be taken forward. Therefore, the amendment on widening the inheritance of tenancies seems very important. Can the Minister give an assurance that members of a farmer’s extended family will be able to inherit the farm? This is an important aspect of the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on these issues.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158 and am very pleased to support it. My noble friend Lord Whitty and others have made an important case for restricting the disposal of county farms and, instead, for making good use of the smallholdings to bring new entrants into the sector, using the assets as exemplars of good environmental practice and providing greater public access. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this is not about preserving the status quo; it is about providing a renaissance for the sector and the land that it covers. We would like to see these smaller farms have a direct link with their local communities, providing local fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as meat and dairy produce. This should be what “public money for public goods” is all about.
In the past, smaller farms of less than five hectares have been excluded from receiving direct payments, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that these thresholds will now be scrapped and that what will matter is what the farmer does with the land, rather than the size of it. We also hope that local authorities will be persuaded, through the process of a review, to see the potential of their county farms in the longer term and the potential that they can bring to their communities, rather than being a source of short-term cash on disposal.
I also have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone about the applications of the community infrastructure levy. I agree that it is in danger of inhibiting innovation and the encouragement of a range of activities in the sector.
I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, talk about creating smallholdings and work spaces. I agree with a number of noble Lords who have been excited about that prospect. I can see the potential, but I also think that it would depend very much on where the land and activities were sited. I have a feeling that the noble Earl mentioned that it might happen on the green belt, and I would certainly have concerns if he did say that. However, with good planning and good organisation, I can see that that could be a real asset among the range of options in the farming community.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has a series of amendments about tenancy reform. We agree that such reform is long overdue. A number of noble Lords have, rightly, made the point that short-term tenancies inhibit long-term investment in farm quality and development, and this is one of the many reforms that needs to be addressed.
We welcome the first steps made in Schedule 3, but clearly they do not go far enough. Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, it may well be that the scale of the reform that is needed is not well served by being set out in a schedule to the Bill. This is a matter to which we need to pay full attention. For example, we believe that there needs to be a greater rebalancing of the power between the landlord and the tenant.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. At its heart is our consideration about how we ensure that there is a vibrant farming sector in the future, with young people coming into a very important industry and way of life. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, about new skills.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for Amendment 158, which I will address alongside Amendment 159. For a successful long-term future, agriculture relies on attracting new talent and bringing new skills and innovation into the sector. For many years, local authority smallholding estates and council farms have provided opportunities for entrant farmers. While Amendment 158 is aimed at preventing further disposal of smallholdings and council farms by local authorities, such intervention may conflict with the Local Government Act, which gives local authorities the power to manage and dispose of their land according to local priorities and the principle of delivering best value.
Rather than adding regulatory burdens, the Government want to work collaboratively with local authorities, supporting them to retain and invest in the rejuvenation—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, may have used the word regeneration—and development of their smallholdings and council farms. As stated in Defra’s Farming for the Future: Policy and Progress Update, published in February, this Government intend to use the powers under Clause 1 to offer funding to councils, landowners and other organisations to invest in creating more opportunities for new entrants to access land, delivering the kinds of outcomes that my noble friend is seeking through Amendment 159.
Local authorities can take advantage of rural exception sites to help the delivery of affordable housing, and the revised National Planning Policy Framework includes new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm businesses with succession. We will work with local authorities, community land organisations and other landowners as we develop this funding scheme, and further details will be set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plan. Working collaboratively with local authorities in this way and supporting them to manage their estates to provide important fresh opportunities for new farmers will be more effective than adding regulatory burdens.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford may know—I am sure he does—that in April 2018 the Government amended a national permitted development right to support rural housing and agricultural productivity, meaning that up to five new homes can be created from existing agricultural buildings on a farm, rather than the previous maximum of three. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding allotments, that these are matters for local authorities. The decision to increase local provision is taken at a local level.
On Amendment 222, the community infrastructure levy is a matter for local authorities and the MHCLG. It is an important tool to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in their areas. In setting rates, local authorities must strike an appropriate balance between using CIL to fund the infrastructure required to support the development and the potential effects of imposing CIL on the economic viability of development across the area, including agricultural developments. Although it is a matter of education and therefore within another department’s remit, out of considerable interest I will take what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and see what further I can make of it.
On tenancies, in relation to the stand part debate and Amendment 223, measures in Clause 34 and Schedule 3 are designed to make pragmatic modifications to tenancy legislation. This package of reforms received broad support from respondents to our public consultations in England and Wales last year, and they deliver on many of the recommendations from the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. The provisions have been carefully drafted to balance the interests of tenants and owners. I agree that agricultural tenancy legislation is complex. Any further changes impacting on landlord and tenant property rights must be very carefully considered in a timely way and not rushed.
Some of the proposals that we consulted on last year are not included in Schedule 3 because they did not have broad support, or because responses showed that they needed more detailed development work before the proposed changes could work effectively, and alternative ways of achieving the policy aim should be explored. The UK and Welsh Governments are very willing to engage in further discussions about those proposals and to review the need for further tenancy reform with members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which includes representative of owners and tenants.
In Amendment 237 my noble friend Lady McIntosh is seeking assurance that the Government will make these regulations; I can give that assurance. The Government intend to start discussions with members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to develop the details of these regulations over the next few months, to ensure that the interests of tenants and owners are taken into account.
On Amendments 238 to 240, 245 and 246, many owners and tenants come to practical agreements on such issues without the need for dispute resolution. To encourage this approach further, the Tenancy Reform Industry Group is working on updated guidance to support tenants and owners in discussions about diversification and environmental schemes highlighting the benefits for both parties. This dispute provision has been carefully constructed, after consultation, to be used in limited circumstances, balancing the interests of both tenants and owners, so that market confidence in the benefits of agricultural tenancy agreements is not undermined. Broadening the provision to cover a much wider range of circumstances, such as for diversified activities, may result in lasting changes to land use and the value of the owner’s assets. As such, it is more appropriate that such requests are negotiated between the parties.
Regarding tiers 2 and 3, and landlord issues relating to public access, I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that we are currently finalising eligibility requirements for ELMS, including whether landlord consent or consultation would be required for tenants to join ELMS, including for tier 2 and tier 3 projects. As I said, our tests and trials are designed to include tenant farmers in the schemes. We are actively considering this as part of the codesign with all stakeholders, and I do not want to pre-empt the process but, as I have said, we are very clear that the tests and trials will include tenant farmers.
Responses to our public consultation show that there is not the same need for dispute provisions for farm business tenancies as there is for Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies. Agricultural Holdings Act agreements were negotiated sometimes 30 or 40 years ago in a very different policy and commercial environment, and often contain outdated restrictions that have not been reviewed for many years. Farm business tenancies are more modern commercial agreements negotiated more recently in the context of environmental schemes being available. They are reviewed more regularly, giving tenants the opportunity to renegotiate the contract’s terms if they deem it necessary, for example, to enable diversifications or to enter future financial assistance schemes.
Respondents to the consultation also noted that there is a risk that providing tenants with opportunities to challenge the terms of recently negotiated agreements could undermine owner confidence in letting land through farm business tenancies, reducing opportunities for tenants in future. Because I have no interest to declare in this matter, I will respond to the point that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made. In all our desire to ensure that there is a vibrant farming sector with both owners and tenants—as well as other sectors—all of which make a great contribution, we need to be mindful of getting the right system in place, one that does not have the consequences of many owners of properties with a small amount of land deciding that this tenancy route may not be for them.
We have sometimes conceptualised this discussion as being about large landowners and small tenants. Very often, the modern arrangements are for owners with a small acreage deciding they might have a farm business tenancy. It is unfortunate that we sometimes characterise these matters in this way. It is often about someone with a smallish acreage wanting a farm business tenancy with an incoming tenant.
I agree that there can be benefits from tenants and owners entering into longer-term tenancy agreements. The Government consulted widely on this last year. The feedback gathered indicates that introducing shorter notices to quit in certain circumstances is unlikely significantly to affect owners’ decisions about the length of tenancy to offer. Other factors, such as the size, quality and location of the land and personal motivations for owning land have a much greater influence on decisions about the length of the tenancy term to offer.
It is also important to recognise that, while there are benefits to longer-term tenancy agreements, shorter-term tenancies can be more suitable for different business models. For example, short-term lets can be more appropriate for new entrants looking to rent land on a flexible basis to gain experience. Short-term lets can also be more suitable for some seasonal horticulture businesses.
I turn to Amendments 243 and 244. The Government consulted on proposals to expand the list of relatives eligible to succeed a tenancy agreement. Concerns were raised that doing so could disproportionately affect owners’ rights to their property because the changes could extend a tenant’s occupation of the holding for many years beyond the timescale an owner has been expecting, particularly in the case of succession by the grandchildren of current tenants.
There are examples of owners being willing to negotiate solutions to family succession, such as offering long-term tenancy agreements to grandchildren of the tenant where they are the most suitable future tenant with the best knowledge and skills to continue the farm successfully. We believe that this is the sensible way forward. The Government will continue to engage in discussions with the Tenancy Reform Industry Group —which represents both tenants and owners—to encourage this process.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach referred to cropping licences—they are not tenancies and they are part of the farming scene now. ELMS will provide funding to those who are carrying out the management of the land or water to deliver the environmental public goods being funded.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fantastically interesting debate and I very much support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and many others to do with county farms and the length of tenancies, especially what the Minister was just saying about the variety of agriculture.
However, there is a gap here: urban agriculture. When I ran the London Food Board, which I began in 2008, we started a scheme called Capital Growth to create community gardens in London. The plan was to create 2,012 by 2012, which we did and, in fact, today —I have just checked on the website, where you can type in your postcode to find your nearest garden—we have 2,553 community gardens covering about 250 acres of London and producing £288,000 worth of produce every year.
The thing about urban agriculture is that, for a kid growing up in an urban school on an estate in a poor area, the idea of ever being a farmer is as remote as me thinking I could go to the moon. It is not just that they would not be a farmer; there would be nobody who had a father who was a farmer. Therefore, the introduction of community gardening is vital, not only in educating people but in helping them take the first step on the way to becoming growers and custodians of the land and setting up small businesses. Because I visited so many, I know that many supply restaurants and supermarkets. There are wonderful places where they grow hops and make their own beer, which becomes an industry. Even in these tiny spaces, you can do this.
The social benefits are dramatic—the police, doctors and community leaders all favour this—but it is also extremely cheap, and it means that people get an education about growing. I have listened to almost all of this debate and, all the way through, we have talked about agriculture as though it can happen only in the country. That is not so; it is a fact that it can happen in cities. You see it towns such as Incredible Edible Todmorden, and in schools. I have a proposal in with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who is very enthusiastic. I would very much like the Minister’s support for us to take this project countrywide. It is good for your health, it teaches you to grow food and it is fantastic for the environment.
I will share one small detail. There are hives all over London. At one point, we had more hives than we could supply with flowers, but then we balanced that up. A study was done in Paris about the honey that is produced there—96 different flowers went into the taste of that honey. We held annual honey competitions, and we had honey that went from almost clear, or almost white, through to something that looked like treacle. You could tell the honey that had come from the lime trees in particular parks. It gave people an enormous sense of belonging, and put people on the first step to agriculture. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb said that councils should have allotments. We realised a year and a half in that an allotment was an impossibility because, when you get an allotment, you are saying that the land must be there in perpetuity. We had “meanwhile leases”, which means they can be taken back; that would be a great way forward.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I believe that the noble Baroness made a speech rather than asking a question but I have noted it all. I approve of gardening, community gardening and the production of food.
Lord Whitty [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Jones, and others, who supported the general approach of Amendment 158. I thought that I would fall out with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but I essentially agree with him that, if we are to have a revival of county farms, we will have to redefine the mission. What is clear from all speakers is that, in this brave new world of post-CAP agricultural policy, we will need people to come into farming who have not traditionally been there and who are unlikely to be able to buy their way into it. We need their talents, their skills, their entrepreneurship, their enthusiasm and their recognition that the provision of public goods, which this Bill is all about, is an important part of farming. Regrettably, when it comes to county farms, neither the structure of ownership of agricultural land in this country, nor, in some respects, the provisions of tenancy law, nor the withdrawal of the local state from this area—none of these things—are particularly conducive to bringing new talent, new blood and new ideas into farming; we need to make a new start.
My amendment is quite limited. It asks the counties involved to review their estates, not to sell any for the moment, and then to define a new strategy along with Defra and the farming organisations. That is an important part of the rejuvenation of agriculture. It must be recognised that this Bill should be paralleled with a means of more people coming in with new skills and new backgrounds. I understand the issue of urban agriculture and community gardens and so on as one potential way in, but the traditional way in through county farms is rapidly disappearing. We need to continue to make positive use of what is there, and to ask the counties, effectively, to look at the situation again and do so in this new strategic sense.
The schemes coming through ELMs and through the other provisions of this Bill will need the next generation to seize the opportunities that they present. That means that we need new ways in. I hope that county farms will be a significant provider of those ways in. I will not press my amendment for the moment, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that even the present level of county farms may well deserve some special recognition within this Bill in respect of government support for the public good. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 159A. 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 159A
Lord Greaves
“Support in relation to common land, etc
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the circumstances in which financial support is given in relation to registered common land, other land subject to rights of common, and land subject to shared grazing right.(2) In this section, “financial support” means—(a) financial assistance under section 1,(b) relevant payments under Chapter 2, or(c) other financial support under this Chapter.(3) Regulations under this section may include—(a) the circumstances in which financial support may be allocated among two or more persons having an interest in such land;(b) the method and terms on which any financial support may be allocated amongst those persons;(c) the conditions that may be attached to such financial support.(4) In this section, “registered common land” means land registered as common land in a register of common land kept under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 or the Commons Registration Act 1965.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Lord Greaves
Amendment 159A, which I rise to move, covers a very specific and important question: the treatment of commons, and their commoners and owners, under the new system of agricultural support. I hope that by getting a full and clear response at this stage I will not have to bring the matter back at Report. This amendment has been put together with the assistance of the Foundation for Common Land and the Open Spaces Society. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the latter group, and I thank both for their help. A number of noble Lords are knowledgeable about commons, and indeed several survivors of our discussions on the Commons Act back in 2006 are in the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for adding his name to this amendment, and to the Public Bill Office for its help with phrasing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, apologises for not being able to take part in this debate: he has been called to the hills, the lucky man. He has asked me to make the point that where there is common land, which is so prevalent in the uplands, in the event of ELMS the arrangement will have to be multilateral, not bilateral. Hence, every commoner will have to agree, and there is always a difficult so-and-so who could veto the arrangement. There is a need, therefore, for a mechanism to prevent a generally agreed plan being vetoed in this way. This echoes an earlier debate about the resolution of disputes under the new system of environmental and agricultural support.
Clause 2 makes no specific provision for how financial assistance is given in relation to registered common land. The amendment therefore confers powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify or vary the scheme in relation to common land and any lands subject to shared grazing rights, in order to make allowance for the special circumstances inherent in managing common land.
What, in any case, is common land? On one level, it is land registered as common land in a registry kept under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 or the Commons Registration Act 1965. In real world terms, it is land owned by one person but subject to the rights of other people—the commoners—to take some product of the land. These rights of commons nowadays typically relate to the grazing of animals, but may also include the right to take wood, peat, bracken, furs or fish. I remember that in our discussions on the commons Bill 14 years ago, noble Lords enjoyed learning words such as estovers, turbary, piscary and, indeed, pannage. Commons are a survival from the medieval period—land that escaped enclosure. They are, however, of huge present-day importance in historical, biological, cultural, landscape and recreational terms.
In England, common land occupies no more than about 3% of the total land area, but it is key to the viability of many upland farms, comprising 37% of all land above the moorland line and over one-fifth of the area of SSSIs in England. Common land delivers many public benefits. Compared with enclosed land it is seven times more likely to be designated for nature and four times more likely to have a scheduled ancient monument on it.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I must apologise for missing the first couple of moments of my noble friend’s speech. That is what comes when you have your back to the Chamber due to social distancing while you have supper, but I apologise.
I add that the land which has the commons is not exclusively in the north or the uplands. I have a little, vaguely second-hand interest, as I usually catch a train from Hungerford in the mornings and get off one there in the evenings. Hungerford has a very picturesque common; it has lots of dog walkers and cattle on it. It goes back a long way and is one of the surviving things from the Inclosure Acts. The Thames Valley has other areas of common land as well. Small agricultural units or smallholdings are usually allowed on them because there is some land you can get to. Sometimes you have tenancies going on them as well, but they change. It is a complicated system down there, from what I have been able to establish with a little research.
These commons are an historic part of our landscape. They allow for different types of activity. We had a long debate about smallholdings and entrants there but the commons allow certain types of entrants into the agriculture system at a lower level, which would not otherwise be allowed. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government have taken on board how these small but interesting and historic parts of our agricultural system are to be accommodated under this new system.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for bringing this amendment forward. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to sign it; I hope that he will forgive me for that. They say that when two Scots meet, they form a committee, so I do not know what happens when a Lancastrian and a Yorkshireman meet.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I will let you off, then. What is interesting about our debate so far is how little understanding there is of what constitutes common land and what activities are undertaken on it. My experience of the different activities undertaken on common land in North Yorkshire was not an entirely happy one. My noble friend Lord Inglewood absolutely hit the nail on the head in his advice to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the approach to it should be multilateral, not bilateral.
I support Amendment 159A and thank the noble Lord for moving it—with the support of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Lord, Lord Addington—because I am particularly concerned about how the new schemes under ELM will take place where there is a dispute, which there inevitably will be. In summing up, can the Minister say what the dispute resolution mechanism will be? Is it not better to have a blanket one that covers all common land rather than leaving it to the parties of each individual agreement to agree it?
I grew up near to the most successful grouse shooting moors in England, on the upper parts of Teesdale. Grouse shooting was a small activity and did not create a lot of income; now, it has almost overtaken the income from the land. There is great concern that shooting and this obsession with tick control for sheep, as I discovered with one particular agreement, will negate many of the schemes that we hope will benefit under the ELM.
With those two questions, I hope that we will hear some encouraging words from the Minister on the use of common land and ELMS.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke to his amendment on providing support for common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. During the 20 years when I was a county councillor, two of the parishes in my ward had common land. It was jealously guarded and protected from incursions of all forms. Sheep were often grazed on the common, but fencing to ensure that the sheep did not wander was frowned on by some villagers. As for parking on the common, this was a very serious misdemeanour. Some people have an idyllic picture of what common land looks like. In my experience, it is not a flat area around the local duck pond, with weeping willows dipping their branches in the water. As my noble friend said, it is often on sloping and unpromising land. Nevertheless, it is an important element of rural life in parts of England. It is important that it is preserved. I look forward to the Minister’s response on just how he sees it fitting into the Bill and whether it will qualify for financial assistance under the ELM scheme.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I will also speak briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising this issue. I had not considered it before so I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to it. I agree that we need provisions in force in the special circumstances of the use of common land; he made a very good case for the need for a multilateral approach to it. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves for his amendment. He is absolutely right: our commons frequently provide some of the richest opportunities for the provision of environmental public goods and they are an important part of our cultural landscape. The Government are designing future financial assistance schemes to be accessible to as many farmers and land managers as possible. This includes tenant farmers and those who work on common land.
As part of the planned three-year pilot for ELM, the Government will be ensuring that it tests how best to enable commoners to participate and to provide those environmental benefits. To support the development of ELM, we are undertaking a number of tests and trials, working with farmers and land managers to co-design the new schemes. They will help us understand how the scheme could work in a real-life environment. Two of our tests and trials, on Dartmoor and in Cumbria, are looking at issues concerning common land.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves was correct to identify the particular difficulties that can arise when administering payment schemes on common land. The general powers given by the Bill in Clause 1(1) and (2) will enable us to develop agreement terms which work for common land. I can add a bit more detail. The Federation of Cumbria Commoners, and partners, aims to develop and trial a delivery model for creating common-specific land management plans. These plans will support the pastoral economy and maintain the balance of the delicate ecosystems found on commons. The delivery model will encompass a commons toolkit, including baseline data gathering, producing maps, health checks for agreeing and enabling public good delivery, developing commons management plans and commons-proof recommendations for ELM.
If I can add any more detail to that brief answer, I will write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library. With that, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. I look forward to getting as much extra detail as possible, particularly from the two trials that are taking place. I remind the Minister that, because of the sort of places they are, commons are all inherently different. What might be right for the large, upland commons in the Lake District, which cover most of the fells in many valleys, may not be right for what looks like just a field on the edge of a village. I look forward to hearing from the Minister again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 160. I remind noble Lords 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. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 160 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 161 or 162.
Clause 17: Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security
Amendment 160
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the first report on UK food security within 12 months of the Act being passed and publish further reports every three years thereafter.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 160 and 173. Amendment 160 chimes with the amendments of several other noble Lords in calling for the food security report to Parliament, set out in the Bill, to be published within 12 months and every three years thereafter. We welcome the fact that the need for such a report has been acknowledged by the Government, but we want it to be more urgent and ambitious.
There was an excellent debate on this issue in May, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which highlighted the challenges within our food supply, and food security, all too clearly. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought the shortcomings in our current system even more to the fore. While most farmers, food manufacturers and retailers responded magnificently to the challenge of feeding the nation in a lockdown, the incidence of empty shelves, combined with the economic impact, resulting in many being unable to feed their families, was all too stark. The recent report from the Food Foundation evidenced nearly 5 million people experiencing food insecurity, including 2 million children being forced to skip meals.
The crisis identified the personal and economic hardship of food insecurity, but it also highlighted the fundamental problems with our national supply chain. The UK is currently only 53% self-sufficient in food and drink, and the figure is dropping year on year. Nearly half our food is imported, mainly from the EU. During the pandemic, we were forced to rely on fruit and vegetable trucks continuing to make the journey across Europe. Those UK farmers producing fresh fruit and vegetables faced a crisis of seasonal workers, and it is still not clear whether sufficient UK workers have been recruited and retained to harvest our local produce, or whether some of the crops will have to be left to rot in the fields.
We believe there is an urgent need to drive up the percentage of locally grown food in the UK. We believe we should take steps to make that supply more resilient and reliable, particularly as we face the consequences of leaving the EU. This will not happen without a government strategy driving the policy forward. That is why our amendment would bring the date of publication forward, so that more ambitious change can occur and be reviewed on a timely basis.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 161 in my name. It is supported, I understand, by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to whom I am very grateful. This is a simpler version of Amendment 160, with which I find myself largely in agreement—I might have put my name to that had there been any space. The amendment seeks, as does Amendment 160, to ensure that the report to Parliament on food security occurs every three years, not every five years. As with multiannual financial assistance plans, I think it is important to delink the cycle from the political cycle; however, whereas I thought multiannual financial assistance plans should take place every seven years, I think the opposite should apply to the food security reports, and they should be provided to Parliament at least every three years. As we have seen recently, food security circumstances change very fast, and doubtless they will change faster in the future.
At Second Reading, I quoted the words of Dieter Helm, who was obviously a prophet in the area of the ELMS, but may have got things wrong with respect to food security. He suggested that
“food security is largely an empty slogan of lobbyists … It should not be taken seriously.”
Coronavirus has clearly shown those words to be incorrect.
From January 2021 onwards, we will lose the relative support of the common market for food and will become subject to the vagaries of the global markets. Couple this with the impacts of global warming, droughts, floods and harvest failures, and the likelihood of food insecurity growing over the coming years will only increase. We should therefore not underestimate the importance of food security and the need to monitor it regularly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 162 and 171. I am delighted to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lord Caithness for their support.
I believe that it is essential to have a report on progress on food security more frequently—I would suggest every year. Amendment 162 therefore seeks to increase the frequency of publication by the Government of their proposed reports on food security. While I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated their willingness to produce an early report, a five-year interval between reports is much too long for such an important and sensitive issue. Every 10 years we have an issue of food security or animal health—pest, pestilence and, currently, pandemic. We had BSE; we had foot and mouth disease; and we had the horsegate scandal, which could have been much worse, rather than just a fraud.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has, if anything, highlighted even more the strains and stresses within the food supply system. There is no doubt that some of these issues will continue to be a problem for a long time to come. This is the first time in my living memory that we have experienced empty supermarket shelves and people having to queue to shop for food and having restricted choice within food retail outlets. The loss of the food service sector through the government lockdown measures was also a major shock that caused many consumers to consider issues around food security for perhaps the very first time.
We have become complacent over time about our ability, as a relatively rich nation, to secure our necessary food both domestically and internationally, but this could become a much more difficult proposition in the future. One of the most important objectives of a Government is to ensure that their people are well fed and it is therefore imperative that issues around food security are given much greater pre-eminence than envisaged by the Bill, which provides only for five-yearly reports.
Currently, the UK is only around 60% self-sufficient in food and we are reliant upon imports for our remaining food need. If anything, it has become apparent that more and more nations around the world are becoming increasingly nationalistic in terms of their trading policy. There is a risk that a tightening of supplies globally could cause issues for food supply. However, food supply is not just about quantity but quality. The issues of food security go the heart of ensuring that we are not offshoring our environmental and animal welfare problems by the food that we are importing into the UK. We want, surely, to promote, protect and enhance these high standards both at home and internationally and, therefore, our trading policies must reflect that. An annual report from government is a good basis on which to start and a good discipline to ensure that matters are kept in sharp focus.
Turning to Amendment 171, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their support. Again, while I welcome the Government’s commitment to produce a regular report on food security, it is vital that this is a means through which the Government express their policy targets and mechanisms to address issues around food security.
Currently, the provisions in the Bill envisage a fairly static output that merely reports on the current food security situation. I would prefer to see a more dynamic report that seeks to set out an agenda for change, where change is required. There seems little point in the Government merely producing a report of which Parliament is required to take note rather than for it to be a platform for evaluation, repurposing and informing future actions. At the very least, it will be essential to ensure that food security targets are both met and monitored. Where the report indicates that there are issues with aspects of our food and environmental security, the Government must come forward with their plans and policy for addressing these shortcomings.
Amendment 171 will provide the necessary architecture for the Government to take this forward. It will be a failure if, having taken the time to consider the importance of having a food security report, the Government did not also ensure that this report was used to inform changes in policy and procedures. A statutory requirement for the Government to address these issues is surely the sensible thing to include in this Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, 163 and 172, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for having put his name to them. Since this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, I probably need to draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry on the register of interests. More significantly for my noble friend, he will be glad to hear that, though this is the first time I have spoken, it will also be the last time I am going to speak. Bearing in mind the stately progress that is being made, I shall not be holding up proceedings any further.
The amendments in this group discussed so far are about the frequency of reports. I have no particular dog in that fight, but I offer one word of caution, which is that if these reports are going to mean something, they need to be relatively infrequent. If they are too frequent, they lose their impact. I suggest to those who are seeking too frequent reports that these may pass by too easily and quickly. A report wants to be an event when it happens.
My amendments go to another part of this clause and try to give it some teeth. Clause 17, as drafted, could result in some pretty anodyne, platitudinous reports—general statements of principle without any detail. When we talk about food security, detail will be very important. My noble friend on the Front Bench will say, “Absolutely, I understand that, and I will ensure there is going to be detail, and the reports will have plenty of focus.” But we have been here before, and we have been here recently. A Green Future contained similarly impressive objectives and an impressive monitoring procedure. This was to be under the Natural Capital Committee chaired by Professor Dieter Helm, who was the subject of some adverse comments by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about five minutes ago. Professor Helm was to monitor performance under the green future proposals. The last annual report from Professor Helm’s committee, which was in September last year, read as follows:
“Unfortunately, the Progress Report does not in fact tell us very much about whether and to what extent there has been progress. On the contrary, the Progress Report provides a long list of actions, and presents very little evidence of improvements in the state of our natural capital.”
If we do not strengthen the wording in this clause, we will get a long list of actions and very little evidence of improvement. We need to build in some specific teeth.
The second weakness of the clause, as presently drafted, is that it could be a snapshot, whereas what we should be looking for is a continuous look—a cine film in the old-fashioned way—at the process of our food security. Perhaps I could explain further by analogy. When you go to your annual medical, the doctor looks at your heart and lungs, he sees whether your weight has gone up or down, and he tells you what the results are. That is, of course, very important. If you have a poorly performing heart, you want it treated quickly. But what is really important is how you compare with the previous year. Are you getting heavier? Are you getting lighter? Are you losing weight? Has a new mole emerged? Has your blood pressure gone up? All those sorts of things give you an idea, over a period of time, of how your health and physiology are changing. From that, the doctor can prescribe more exercise, less food, pills or whatever.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who spoke with such authority. I wish to speak to my Amendments 164, 167 and 170, to Amendment 160 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others. They seek to ensure that food security is properly recognised in the Bill, in a way that takes full and explicit account of the legitimate interests of all the devolved Administrations. I am grateful for the support of colleagues who have put their names to my amendments.
The tragedy of the Covid pandemic has demonstrated the links between access to nutritious food and public health. Conditions such as obesity and diabetes, which are linked to poor nutritional standards, have been associated with a higher risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from Covid-19.
The panic buying we saw in anticipation of lockdown reminded many of us of the importance of the sustainability, resilience and security of our food supply. However, for many people panic buying is not an option, as poverty means that a secure and nutritious food supply is an everyday challenge. A decade of austerity has widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our society, and the recent loss of earnings due to Covid-19 has added massively to the numbers struggling with food insecurity.
The pressures on food banks have increased, and it is estimated by the Food Foundation that over 8 million people, including 2 million children, in the UK have faced food insecurity of some kind during the pandemic. Recently, it took the intervention of Premier League footballer Marcus Rashford to elicit a response from this Government on the need to continue free school meal vouchers over the school holidays. However, as the Children’s Society pointed out, the Government should make the extension of free school meal vouchers over the holiday permanent, whether or not there is a pandemic. The Government need to take much more responsibility for ensuring that all UK citizens have access to adequate supplies of nutritious food.
In a nation where 50% of food is currently imported—30% from the European Union—the importance of protecting high standards of nutritional value, and of the security and quality of both our domestic production and the high-quality fresh produce we import from the EU, cannot be overestimated. The subsector is very dependent on imports, as only 16% of the fruit and 53% of the vegetables we consume are grown in the UK. In this situation, retailers will face potential shortages of supplies if trade barriers are introduced because of a hard Brexit.
Our reliance on fruit and vegetable trucks coming across from Europe reminds us of the importance of securing an extension to the Brexit transition period to allow time to recover from the impacts of the pandemic and for the negotiators to strike the right Brexit deal. However, on the contrary, the Government appear to be prioritising trade deals with countries far beyond Europe, such as the United States, with its inferior food production and unsafe animal welfare standards. If such trade deals are allowed, with no requirement to preserve the high standards that Britain and the European Union have maintained, they will undercut our farmers with poorer-quality cheap food.
For agriculture and the food industry, and for both imports and exports, the continuation of European Union trade, where we have a level playing field, is vital. We need to ensure that Brexit does not mean that supply lines of fresh food from the EU are interrupted because of tariff barriers, or that our farmers lose their important export markets in the EU. In the post-Covid world, to meet nutritional and environmental goals, we need to trade more, not less, with our nearest neighbours.
A legal guarantee of future food, animal welfare and environmental standards would safeguard all UK consumers from unhealthy and unsafe food, while also protecting British farmers at risk of being undercut by poor-quality imports. However, so far, the Government have failed to support calls for such amendments to the Bill. The Bill is an opportunity to protect all British consumers and farmers from food imports of dubious quality, and to maintain current nutritional, environmental and animal welfare standards for vital imports of fresh food.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I rise to support the general principle in this group of amendments of more regular reports on food security, although I am not sure whether they should be yearly or three-yearly.
I wish to speak to my Amendment 165 to Clause 17, concerning the
“Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security”.
My amendment fine-tunes the wording of subsection (2), stating that the data analysed in the report “must”—rather than the vague word “may”—include the matters covered in paragraphs (a) to (e). A number of amendments already tabled relate to reporting on food security. Given the period of uncertainty ahead for farmers as we leave the single market and customs union and strike up new trade deals, this reporting should be much more frequent than once every five years. Given the importance of a domestic food supply, it is paramount that the Government re-examine this aspect of the Bill through the lens of the coronavirus crisis. This amendment is an important addition, ensuring that all the matters listed in subsection (2) are included in that food security report when it is produced.
Baroness Boycott [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 166. In doing so, I thank its supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I also support everything just said by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I was lucky enough to sit on the House of Lords committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which found many cracks and flaws in the food system.
My amendment looks not just at food security, as I want to consider household food security. Sufficient food nationally does not mean that individual households can access it in sufficient quantity, let alone that it is sufficiently healthy food, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Since April 2019, the Government have been measuring food insecurity as part of their Family Resources Survey. This data will be available early next year. The Food Standards Agency also collects data on household food insecurity, as part of the Food and You survey. Both surveys are internationally recognised and peer reviewed.
In essence, the Government are already doing this; they are collecting the data on which this amendment would have them report. So, this is not an onerous amendment—it is very simple and cost-neutral. The Government are already doing the work. My amendment simply asks that the information be regularly laid before Parliament. If we do not accept this amendment, the Government will be sending a clear message to the millions who struggle to access healthy food that their hunger and problems are not a priority.
We know that more that 2,000 food banks have become embedded in our welfare system. Even before the pandemic, millions in the UK were food insecure. Now, millions more have joined them. Covid-19 has seen food insecurity levels more than double. Refusing to report to Parliament on food insecurity at a household level lets that problem remain hidden. It is only by knowing the true scale of UK hunger that we can start to mitigate it. We should do this annually because unless you measure something, you cannot change it. In a country as rich as ours, no one should go to bed hungry. Accepting this amendment, which is cost-neutral and simple, would demonstrate that the Government are willing to treat the systemic and worsening problem of food insecurity—in a family, every night, in their kitchen—with the seriousness that it deserves.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking between the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with whom I sat on the House of Lords committee that produced the report Hungry for Change, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords have been so complimentary.
I speak in support of my Amendment 169 in this group. I am grateful for the support of other noble Lords who have added their names to it. It addresses how, if we are to be food secure in this country, we need to ensure that the minimum amount of food is wasted—yet, in the list of data that will be provided in the food security report to inform policy thinking on our future resilience and food security, there is no mention of food waste.
There are currently significant levels of on-farm food waste in this country. In 2019, WRAP estimated that about 3.6 million tonnes of food is surplus, and waste occurs on farm every year. That is equivalent to about 7% of the total annual UK food harvest. There is huge potential to reduce the amount of surplus and waste by promoting best practice, with new insights being good for growers, businesses, the climate and feeding our people.
One of the priority areas in Clause 1 of the Government’s Environment Bill is resource efficiency and waste reduction. We need better synergy between the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, and a way to achieve that is for us to see where the main problems with food waste are in the supply chain. To do that, we need the data to cover each part of the supply chain. My amendment would provide for that, so that we have a food security report that does the job that we need it to do.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 173, so excellently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Many of my comments will echo hers.
As an aside, it is perhaps worth clearing up a point of definition. In the debate so far, we have heard the terms “food security” and “food insecurity” used in two distinct ways. First, we have heard “food security” as it applies to the nation as a whole: do we have a system that can guarantee a supply of food for the country as a whole? Secondly, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we have heard “food insecurity” as it applies to the individual or household that cannot afford enough to eat.
The chief executive of one of the UK’s food companies told me a couple of years ago that when he asked at No. 10 what the Government’s food strategy was, he received a blank look. The question had simply not occurred to the people in No. 10. Fortunately, things have moved on since then with the establishment of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, of which we have already heard quite a lot. I have no doubt that the Dimbleby report, and its interim report due out in the next week or two, will be an excellent piece of work and will have much to say about the issues covered in this amendment,
I would also like to mention the recently published report Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food from the Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment, which I had the privilege of chairing. This report has already been referred to in this debate by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Parminter and Lady Boycott. The latter two sat on the committee with me. I would like to highlight just three points from our report.
First, as we have heard, food insecurity—that is, worrying about not having enough to eat—is a big problem in this country. We do not yet have official figures, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we should soon have them. However, the UN has estimated that the number of people suffering food insecurity is at least 2.2 million. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, the Food Foundation estimates that more than 5 million people worry about not having enough to eat. This is shocking but not surprising, given that one in five people in Britain live in poverty, according to the Government’s own figures. Furthermore, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Covid-19 is almost certainly making things worse.
Secondly, poor people tend to have less healthy diets, not through any fault of their own but because the way in which food is manufactured, marketed and priced conspires against healthy eating. Without the time, resources or emotional bandwidth, the least well-off people find it hardest to swim against the tide of cheap, accessible, tasty, heavily marketed and unhealthy junk food.
Thirdly, we know what kinds of measures would be effective in changing our food system for the better. We know that it will not happen by voluntary industry action or by public information campaigns. It will need a more interventionist approach from government on promotion, advertising, reformulation and perhaps taxation on less healthy food. The soft drinks industry levy shows how successful strong government intervention can be, but up till now the Government have been unwilling to do more. This inaction is inexcusable because it condemns the poorest, most disadvantaged children in Britain to a life of ill health followed by an early death.
We are all placing a lot of hope on the Dimbleby report, but there is a risk that it will make excellent recommendations only to gather dust in a corner, following the fate of many other earlier reports of the same kind. Our Select Committee report suggests how this might be prevented. The Government are already committed to publishing a White Paper on the food strategy, but the delivery of the strategy should, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, be monitored by an independent body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change, reporting regularly to Parliament on progress.
Furthermore, the problem of food and poverty covers several different government departments. Therefore, there is a need for a high-level ministerial co-ordination group to ensure that actions are properly joined up across Government.
This amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to make a radical shift in their approach to food policy. Let us not waste the opportunity in the way that we waste a lot of our food.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the wise words that he has given us. I hope the Government will take heed of what he has to say and the need for action. I support and endorse everything that has been said about food poverty and the difficulty of finding affordable and nutritious food for many people on low incomes.
I will speak in support of Amendments 164 and 167, which I have signed, as well as Amendments 160, 170 and 171, and will take a slightly different approach. The first two amendments are aimed at securing co-ordination on food security across the UK. This is essential if we are not to risk disruption in the supply chain and unfair terms of access to affordable and nutritious food in all parts of the UK. Looking at the devolved regions, one can see that Scottish food exports are about £3.6 billion per annum to the rest of the UK and about £1.6 billion internationally. Northern Ireland exports £3.5 billion, of which £1.26 billion goes out of the UK, and Wales exports around £337 million, most of which goes to the EU. Therefore, agriculture is important to the economies of the devolved Administrations in terms of value and employment, proportionally more so than across England, although the north and the south-west of England also have significant agricultural sectors.
Of course, all parts of the UK are dependent on food imports. We are a long way short of self-sufficiency, as many people have reminded us. Therefore, it is not hard to see the potential tensions that could arise. In reality, the south of England is the main domestic market for the devolved Administrations’ food production. In normal times, this is a good example of our internal market, and I am very proud that we in Scotland produce extremely good-quality food that I think people in London and the south-east appreciate and are often prepared to pay a premium to receive.
However, if there was a crisis of supply that left home-grown food for domestic consumption in short supply in the devolved Administrations while maintaining supply in the south, this could cause problems. Alternatively—in reverse—if the south was kept short by diversion into local markets, the same problems would arise. By the same token, if there was disruption to imports of key food that led to the supplies being diverted to the larger markets at the expense of the periphery—meaning people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would face shortages or higher prices, or both—the same difficulties would arise.
Therefore, for something as critical as food, the market cannot be the sole recourse at times of crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has quite starkly pointed out that the market puts nutritious food beyond the reach of many people. Co-ordination among all the tiers of government is required to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of affordable and nutritious food. There is a problem now, but it could be considerably worse if we take the combined threats that we can see ahead.
The other amendments that I support are aimed at anticipating the possibility of potential shortages in good time so that appropriate UK-wide action can be taken. It is quite likely that, when we leave the EU on 31 December, we could face disruption to our food supplies; I have pointed this out before. There will be delays for inspection of foods, cost and additional bureaucracy, all of which could lead to a loss of supply and a diversion of supply away from the UK. I have made the point that it may not be due to a lack of willingness to supply the UK or any kind of boycott; it may just be that bureaucracy and cost make other markets more attractive and profitable, leaving us at a disadvantage. Indeed, if trucks or fresh food transport is sufficiently delayed, then food will perish or be damaged, and lose quality.
Even if we manage to avoid a spike that causes that to happen, readjustments will take place in UK and EU agriculture and food production to take account of Brexit arrangements that we do not yet know about. These other amendments, therefore, require the Government to set targets, anticipate adverse changes, take action and report—in the first place within 12 months, and then every three years.
In the post-pandemic, post-Brexit world, with looming climate change and other problems potentially disrupting harvests and yields, the UK cannot rely on the global marketplace and must have a domestic strategy. The Government have not been good at planning for crises or disasters. Accepting these amendments might show that they are willing to learn.
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, this amendment has been very important in enabling a wider debate. As we have been hearing, food security is fundamental to the welfare of the nation, in terms of health, diet, fitness for work and the ability to live life fully, but it also has implications for what our agricultural production does that accelerates climate change. It relates also to all the other impacts of climate change on our agriculture—a terrific and complex range of impacts.
In view of this, it seems simple and clear that we cannot afford to have a laid-back approach to reporting and accountability. There needs to be vigour and frequent reporting, as far as is reasonable. The Bill is currently too relaxed and complacent, and the debate has emphasised the importance of the first amendment in this group, which demands more frequent reporting. From that standpoint I am very glad that my noble friend has moved this amendment and am only too pleased to support it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly those to which I have added my name. This is probably one of the most important debates in Committee, because it deals with food security and insecurity, which is key to the development of a new agricultural policy in the UK, in the context of both Westminster and the various devolved regions. That is the opportunity afforded by the new dispensation in a post-Brexit relationship, notwithstanding the fact that I would have preferred to remain in the European Union.
In relation to the amendment, there is a need, as has been pointed out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for a greater level and frequency of reporting, and I have added my name to Amendment 162, which deals with reporting on an annual basis: it should be mandatory and it should be in the Bill.
I have also signed Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which addresses food insecurity. This really goes back to the issue of individual food insecurity, the issues around resources and the need to improve general health and well-being. That should also be explicit in the Bill.
Looking at the issues of food security and insecurity, there is a clear need for those food security targets to be met and monitored. If we are serious about underpinning food security, the legislation needs to be toughened and strengthened, as stated in Amendment 171. We therefore need a dynamic report, on an annual basis, with a food plan in place.
I was also a member of the Select Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced the report entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the report dealt with issues to do with resources, and the nature of the current welfare system that prohibits people having proper access to the money to buy good-quality, nutritious foods. It dealt with: the lack of availability of nutritious food for certain groups of people; the impact of marketing; the impact of having to go to food banks on people who rely on benefits—raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott; and the need to deal with reformulation.
Another issue is trade deals. We have to ensure that we have better-quality food and that we are not forced to deal with food from other countries that is poorly produced in inhumane conditions, or food that may be infused with hormones or chlorine. Our report asked that the Government commit to detailed and routine monitoring of the levels of food insecurity. That data should be published transparently and be subject to scrutiny, to ensure that trends in food insecurity can be linked to wider socioeconomic reforms and can inform policy in other areas, such as public health and welfare, so that efforts to tackle food insecurity can be targeted effectively.
In summary, it is vital that the Minister is willing to accept these amendments, which strengthen the Bill. Our report has been mentioned in previous sessions. Has the Minister had time to peruse it? Does he have any initial thoughts, in advance of Mr Dimbleby’s report on the whole area of food? I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 160, 162, 167, 171 and 173, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am the fifth member of the Select Committee which, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced Hungry for Change, to speak on this group of amendments so far. I commend to the Minister the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which covered so many points.
This part of the Bill is headed “Food Security”. As the noble Lord said, there are two meanings of that. The first is the household food security so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I support what she said; she is renowned for her expertise in this area. The second area of food security concerns food coming into this country. That was part of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who quoted a figure on how self-sufficient we are. Again, there is a dichotomy here. There is our total self-sufficiency in food and the self-sufficiency in food produced by the UK for consumption or use in the UK. Instead of the rather low figure of about 60% for total food, we are 75% self-sufficient in homegrown food.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is a real privilege to take part in the debate on this group of amendments, which has produced some of the most interesting and outstanding speeches in the whole of this Committee stage; the Government may think that some of them were a little long but I think that people can be excused if they are really good.
I signed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I must say, when I did so, I did not have a clue about what he was going to make of his amendment and what he was going to say. His speech is one of those that I want to go back to and read carefully tomorrow. It was quite outstanding and put some of the problems that we have been talking about in a wider geographical and longer-term context. I am pleased that I signed that amendment.
I am also pleased that I signed the amendment tabled by my long-standing friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, introduced the concept of food insecurity as opposed to food security. It is an absolute scandal, as I have already said in Committee, that we are arguably the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world—one of the richest countries ever in the world—and we have food banks. Something is seriously wrong. I remember that, when I was quite young, in the working class district I grew up in, it was well known that, in the households, the wife would go without food to feed the husband, who was the wage-earner. The vital thing was that that wage continued. Nowadays, even in the town I live in, Colne—near where I represent on the council—we know that young women are going without enough food in order to feed their children. This is 2020. This country has never been as rich as it is now, yet this is going on. Something is seriously wrong. I would say that something has to be done about it, but that is a cliché, I know.
I was very pleased to sign the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Parminter about food waste. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had, I think, four apocalyptic subheadings in his speech, and one was shortage of food. The amount of food wasted in this country—in all the developed world—is absolutely shocking. It happens on the farm; in production, to some extent; in the supermarkets, which are getting a bit better but it still happens there; and in the hospitality industry. People are buying too much food and throwing appalling amounts away without even putting it on a plate, and people are putting too much on their plates and throwing half away. The amount of food wasted in households is a disgrace. I was a war baby and it is hard-wired inside my head that if the food is on the plate, you damn well eat it. Sending food back on a plate, even if I hate it and it is horrible, is something I find very difficult to do, because that was hard-wired into me in the first 10 years of my life. Nowadays, people do it all the time and do not think anything about it. We have to get back to the idea that you buy food, you cook food, you eat that food, and you do not eat too much—you cook the appropriate amount. This is very important. If we are talking about government propaganda exercises, which they seem to be heavily into at the moment, that is one that they might take on in a big way.
We have been told that we are leaving the European Union—the common market, the single market and the trade area—to have control over our own borders. Then we get this Bill, which is about providing farmers with sufficient income and providing sufficient food and food security and so on. The Bill gives the Government all these powers but, as the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Whitty, and many others keep saying, we do not know what the Government’s policy is for using these new powers that they will have. We do not know if, as far as trade is concerned, they will go for open borders and cheaper food. If that happens, how will they support the farmers? We do not know whether they will encourage more expensive and higher-quality food and keep the imports out. We have no idea. We know that some members of the Conservative Party are very pro-farmer and very worried, but we know that lots of others want us to be a buccaneering, free-trading country and want us to go back to the repeal of the Corn Laws and so on. Until we know the answers to those questions, we do not really know how this Agriculture Bill will pan out. It is very unsatisfactory that we are providing the Government with the framework, but it is in a vacuum.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I begin by referring to Amendment 168, which appears under my name on the Marshalled List, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support for it. I have already referred to the many environmental and health advantages of plant-based foods, but this amendment refers specifically to the issue of food security.
I refer noble Lords to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2019 report, The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. It points out that nine species are responsible for two-thirds of the world’s crops, and 40 types of livestock produce nearly all the meat, milk and eggs. We suffer from a similar lack of diversity in the UK. A handful of crops dominate our land, as you see when you travel around the country. Not having crop diversity also means that you do not have the variety of insects and microbes—the suite of ecosystems that would accompany different crops. There is also the huge risk of one disease or bad season for a particular crop having a huge impact. But moving more into plant-based foods—perennial crops, tree crops, nuts and fruits—creates a more diverse and secure system, in terms of the first sort of food security identified by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Moving towards plant-based foods gives you a more diverse and secure food supply.
I refer also to Amendment 169, which appears under the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and which I was pleased to sign. It refers to the issue of food waste, which many noble Lords have already referred to, and demands a report from the Government on food waste and surplus. It would be a crucial step forward that I hope the Government will be prepared to accept. We have a situation where many sides of the House and many parts of the country agree that food waste is a problem, but action has chiefly come from independent charities and community groups. FareShare, for example, rescues huge quantities—but still a tiny percentage—of the food from supermarkets that is largely going to waste, and reaches 11,000 charities and community groups around the country.
That brings me to the crucial way in which waste interrelates with food security in the second sense referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which is people being able to afford the food. A shocking figure from FareShare is that half of the people accessing its food have recently gone a day without food before being able to access that food that has been rescued. I will also mention the Real Junk Food Project, which started just up the road from me in Leeds and has spread to 120 projects in seven countries. We cannot keep relying on such groups to act on food waste; this needs to happen at a government level.
I also refer to Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, signed by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is a crucial point to be made about this: it says that the Government must have targets for food security. We have addressed, in many different contexts, the fact that the Government cannot just have powers; they need to have duties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said, this is possibly one of the most important areas of the Bill. This has to be a duty, not just a power to act.
This brings me to Amendment 162 on annual reports. I shall refer noble Lords to what is now an old report, from 2008, but still worth looking at: Nine Meals from Anarchy from the New Economics Foundation. Noble Lords may recall the fuel blockade, another occasion on which our shelves suddenly emptied. We have no idea when challenges, risks and sudden changes in the world situation will occur. Many noble Lords have talked about the climate emergency, but they could be natural, political or economic, and all of those things are risks that arise very quickly, so I think annual reports are the way to go.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendments 164 and 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Along with farmers’ leaders in Wales and many noble Lords who have spoken today, I very much welcome the inclusion of Clause 17. The duty upon the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the UK’s food security is welcome. However, I share their concerns about the frequency of the reporting requirement and have questions about the purpose of the report. I am sure that when the Government initially drafted this clause, they did not dream of the situation we are now in and the challenges to our food security that we face in the short and the longer term.
The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown into sharp focus the fragility of our supply chains and their susceptibility to disruption, and we face the challenge of preparing for a possible second wave of the virus. The increasing inevitability of the negotiations around our future trading relationship with the EU coming to an abrupt halt without a favourable trade deal at the end of the transition period raises real concerns over the possible disruption of food supply chains at our borders. Also, the impact of climate change on global food availability will increasingly demand our attention. These three challenges and others could present the Government with problems. They need to demonstrate that they have responses to events such as these and can deal with them with confidence and agility, but I am afraid that on two counts, Clause 17 fails to allow for that.
As I highlighted at Second Reading, there is merely a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament
“containing an analysis of statistical data”.
But what then? There is nothing in this clause to require the UK Government or the Welsh Government to publish a report and to act in response to its findings. We will have data, of course, but how will it be used?
The second weakness in this clause lies, of course, in the inadequacy of the reporting frequency, and I support those who have their names to Amendment 160 in their call for the first report to be prepared within 12 months of the Act passing, to be followed every three years thereafter by similar reports.
The Government’s intention to lay a report every five years appears to border on complacency, when we are still learning lessons from the present pandemic; we are still waiting for the Government to show how they will avoid chaos at our borders and the climate change crisis moves ever closer. But perhaps I am being unfair in accusing the Government of complacency. As I said earlier, this clause was written before the pandemic struck, and I am conscious that I speak with the benefit of hindsight, but I hope it illustrates the need for agility when emergencies arise, the need for up-to-date information to aid decision-making and—as the Prime Minister said at the weekend—the need to prepare for the worst. It would be interesting to hear the Minister outline the Government’s view of how they envisage the information the report would contain would be used to improve food security.
I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain—Amendment 164, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 167. I support both of them. They highlight the need for co-operation and consultation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in the production of a food security report. The suggestion was made to the Senedd’s scrutiny committee that the Welsh Government should be
“included in the methodology planning for the report so that Welsh (and other Devolved Administrations) are able to extrapolate their own data to inform future policy making”.
I welcome the co-operative approach taken by the Minister and the Welsh Minister in securing the recognition of devolved competence throughout this Bill, and hope the noble Lord will assure me that the role and responsibility of the Welsh Government, in the production of a food security report, will be recognised as well.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I will keep my remarks short. I have signed only two of the amendments in this group, 162 and 171. In fact, they all improve the Government’s reporting and planning provisions. A regular comprehensive food report setting out targets and action plans would help the country move towards a resilient, flourishing and sustainable food system.
Lord Addington
I am not sure I can be quite that brief, my Lords, but I will give it a go. I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about food waste. To deal with that first, identifying and removing waste is the easiest way to improve any supply chain. I hope that the Government give serious consideration to this.
I hope they also start to address the marketing chain. The just-in-time delivery system, which produces something that we are perceived to want at the right point, without any capacity for things going wrong, has been exposed for not taking many bumps to be put off course. The fuel crisis did it, as did a pandemic. As pandemics go, this is not as frightening as some that we have been threatened with before—the bird flu crisis and others. Covid-19 is a very unpleasant disease that kills people; it is not the Black Death. The scientists tell us that worse is out there. How good would any supply chain be when put under even greater pressure? Other noble Lords have talked about war and political decisions. A few natural disasters and a breakdown in the food chain is a good way to start a war or political crisis.
Can we have greater frequency of checking? Three years is about right. Can we also take a good long look at waste in the chain? If we can manage to identify the waste, we will suddenly have spare capacity and our supply will look a little more secure.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, with some memorable contributions, including that from my noble friend Lord Krebs.
I fully support Amendment 162, as moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and supported by other noble Lords, which says that food security reporting should take place every year. Clause 17 is an important inclusion, and I am delighted that the Government added it. I cannot understand why, once the data capture systems have been identified and established, an analysis cannot be carried out and published each year. It is hugely important to be able to identify trends quickly and to react accordingly. There is a fundamental risk in waiting five or even three years, as proposed in Amendments 160 and 161, in that a major global event or some macroeconomic activity could distort the analysis within a single year. A major weather event can result in crop failure and disproportionately impact on commodity markets.
I agree with almost all the impressive comments made in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I support his Amendment 172 other than on the frequency of the analysis. I believe that an annual report would reduce the risk of distortion by a global event and clearly identify trends. That was highlighted by the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics, and five years is a long time to wait to calculate the impact of climate change on global food production. As has been stated a number of times this evening, the proportion of home-produced food continues to decline—depending on which metric is used, it is around 60%. With a projected population increase in the UK to 70 million or more within the next decade, unless we actively encourage home-produced food, that proportion will decline even further.
I hesitate to contradict the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, but there are opportunities to increase food production. We already import a significant proportion of our fresh produce from water-scarce areas of the world, particularly Africa, where very often people do not have enough food to alleviate hunger within their own countries and communities. We not only have to find better ways to provide economic support for developing countries but should put in place strategic plans to wean ourselves off our dependence on fragile sources of imported food.
I agree with other Peers who have spoken in these debates that it is very unfortunate that we do not have the report from Henry Dimbleby to inform these debates—I hope we will have an indication of his recommendations later this month and before Report. We had an excellent debate last week on whether food security is a public good. It clearly is a public good, and I would be surprised if Henry Dimbleby does not endorse the importance of that fact. So the process of analysis must inform the response.
I therefore regard a five-year analysis of the data suggested in Clause 17 to be inadequate, and even a three year period, as proposed in Amendment 160 and 161. It is really important to inform both government policy and provide industry with information and data on which to develop strategic plans. We need annual reports. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—and that does not happen too frequently. I have listened to some truly informed and insightful comments during this discussion, even if the noble Lord almost came round to the idea, as I suggest, that some of them have been a little too long. Earlier in Committee, I said that I thought that interventions should be as brief as common sense and responsibility allow, so I intend to maintain that.
I would have liked to explore what we really mean by food security. It has a vague meaning and a lack of clear definition in many hands, and it seems to mean too many things to too many people. It needs more rigour if it is to be truly helpful in legislation. The term, like many of the amendments, I fear, suggests a scatter-gun approach, when good legislation requires rigour and precision. However, some of these points have already been made, not just in this group but in earlier ones. We dealt earlier today in the first group with the issues of appropriate timing, and the balance that sound government policy needs to find—that is balance, not rush.
I therefore feel that at this hour of the evening, after such an excellent discussion, I should heed my own advice and avoid any hint of repetition or self-indulgence and allow others to continue so that we can get this vital piece of legislation on to the statute book.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
It is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dobbs, a Wiltshire neighbour; my maiden speech in this House was in a debate led by him.
I support the Government’s proposal, added in response to widespread concern in the countryside and the other place, for a report on food security, underlining the importance of UK food supply and farmers’ role in feeding the nation. Covid-19 has underlined the importance of this, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said. However, the supermarkets and the food supply chain did a great job. The empty shelves referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh reflected an initial lack of confidence by consumers, but they soon realised that this reflected a surge in demand, not a real shortage of supply.
Today there are a number of amendments trying to make the food security report more frequent—for example, once a year in Amendment 162—and to broaden its scope; for example, to bring in specific reference to household food security, which I disagree with, or waste in the supply chain, to which I am more sympathetic because of the personal interest I take in waste minimisation and recycling but with which I also disagree in this context. We should keep the review’s remit as simple and focused as possible so that it can be adapted to the needs and concerns of the day.
As a farmer’s daughter and a businesswoman involved in most aspects of the food supply chain in my time—I refer again to my interests in the register—I am strongly against a review more often than every five years. I cannot think of anything more likely to generate constant tinkering with the regulations that affect farmers and the countryside and continued uncertainty in a sector that faces huge change, economic difficulty and fragility —as we have heard during the passage of this Bill. By all means collect and publish data every year and have the first review in 2021 or 2022, but the major review proposed in Clause 17 should not take place more often than once every five years. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said in a fine and wide-ranging speech, frequent reports would also lose their impact.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? We will move on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on the amendments dealing with the timings of the first report and subsequent reports on food security to be laid by the Secretary of State. It is vital that there are regular reports. Otherwise, of course, there is no proof that the obligations for farmers and horticulturalists have been carried out and had the desired effect, but a report is as good only as the data it collects.
As my noble friend Lord Hodgson mentioned, it should be an event. This is particularly relevant when it comes to farming. A report must be able to observe long-term trends, which will enable future policy development to be of the best. Agriculture and horticulture are areas in which many of the trends are slow moving, with little noticeable year-on-year change.
A report in the first year would arguably be of little use, and it is worth noting that many data services on food security publish annually—for instance, on the resilience of the UK supply, and on food safety and consumer confidence. These are only two of a long list that report annually.
In conclusion, it is vital that, along with the existing annual reports, there is a report that has time to look at the long-term trends. No report is worth the paper it is written on unless there has been enough time for in-depth analysis.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Northbrook for his kind words of thanks for my support for his amendment in an earlier group. However, I fear I must disappoint him this time with his Amendment 165.
I worry that the inclusion in the Bill of onerous food security obligations on the Secretary of State might be counterproductive, because it is not clear whether the Government favour food sourced from domestic production or are even-handed between imported and domestic food. To report in detail more often than once every five years would be unnecessary. I therefore oppose most of the amendments in this group, especially Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and Amendments 168 and 173.
A requirement for food security targets, as envisaged by Amendment 171 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, might arouse suspicion among our trading partners just as we seek to strike comprehensive free trade agreements with several of them. I suggest that improved diet and increased diversity of foods, including those imported from overseas, has contributed greatly to food security and household food security in the years since the Second World War and has much reduced the percentage of the household budget that the less well-off spend on food.
Rather than national food plans and national food strategies, the Government should ensure that, in future, our food markets will be free of the distortions that exist today as a result of our membership of the common agricultural policy. Amendment 173 provides for public procurement to promote the purchase of domestically produced food, which many might think a laudable objective. However, as noble Lords are no doubt aware, campaigns to buy British are usually at arm’s length from government because they fall foul of WTO rules. This amendment could leave the Government exposed to challenge, as I am sure the Minister is well aware.
If we are to have regular reporting on food security every five years, as envisaged by the Bill, I have some sympathy with Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which should assist in the reduction of food waste from the current unacceptable levels, and with part of Amendment 172 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, except for that part suggesting that the Government could control the amount of food imported compared with domestic production.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I totally support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I too congratulate the Government for introducing Clause 17 into the Bill.
The excellent thing about Clause 17 is its comprehensive approach. Looking at subsection (2), the relevant factors in these reports—as noted by others—would have to cover a wide range of areas. To name but a few, they would have to report on: our population, its distribution and its nutritional needs; changing tastes and markets; the success or otherwise of a food waste strategy; the percentage of our food that comes from our own diminishing farmland; and port facilities, logistics infrastructure and the cost of transport.
Externally, they would also have to report on: the world political map with regard to food production and consumption; world political stability, for all sorts of reasons, including transport; and now, of course, the world health outlook. There will be other matters to be examined, but that gives you a taste of the breadth of the subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, this will inevitably involve a small team of people at Defra permanently trawling for the relevant up-to-date information across this wide landscape, and this small team cannot just be convened every now and again. We have seen this year how quickly a situation can arise. The department needs to have its finger on the pulse, so if this team is permanently doing the work, and hopefully informing Ministers on a regular basis, why not have done with it and produce a report on an annual, or at the very least biennial, basis? Whether this report needs to be laid formally before Parliament is another matter. Personally, I would support an annual basis, as in Amendment 162.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, I agree with Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which calls for United Kingdom food security reports properly to reflect the necessary link between food provision, diet and the environment. Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, points out that such reports ought to assess not just food supply but how much of it is wasted—a point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. Clearly, these reports must also be closely connected to targets and actions, as additionally emphasised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I am also in favour of her Amendment 62, which would require the Government to produce their report on food security annually, rather than every five years, as in the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group that propose that the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. A more frequent reporting cycle will give the Government and others a quicker and clearer understanding of the issues and emerging trends, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. At Second Reading, I also said that a more comprehensive understanding of the realities would be gained from reporting if it included reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability. I therefore welcome the spirit of Amendments 163 and 172, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Their exact detail may differ from what I was proposing, but they would broaden the scope and context of the reporting in a not dissimilar direction, as well as encouraging the Government to detail any proposed changes to policy.
Finally, while declaring my interests as a Scottish farmer, I note that certain amendments in the group, notably Amendment 164, seek to ensure liaison, co-ordination or collaboration with the devolved Administrations. This should be seen as an important objective, both in Clause 17 and elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words in support of what I think is the key amendment, Amendment 173. We need a national food plan. We heard very strategic speeches from my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other members of his committee, but it has to be a national plan. I say to the Minister that something like this new clause will be in the Bill, and it would be better if it were done with the Government’s agreement.
We in the UK are going to be alone once the transition period has ended, and we need to build our alliances. We can never be self-sufficient: our geography and climate do not allow it, nor does the shape of our country. We will always be food importers. I am in favour, as I have said before, of using as much of our land as possible to grow our own food, and it may not always be land that is open to the sky. It is not a nanny state approach; it requires a national plan. It simply cannot be left to market forces. Market forces have left us with between 2 million and 5 million people without enough food to eat.
Before Covid-19, I think that the general estimate was that about 40% of household meals were eaten outside the home. All that might change, but that 40% is pretty crucial, because the portions are not controlled by those who eat; they are controlled by the food business. As I said in a previous debate—a week ago, I think—portion control science within the food industry is very precise. It is designed to be obesogenic and to make us eat more. Therefore, there is an issue here that has to be dealt with and it is covered in the proposed new clause.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who of course has more knowledge about the UK’s food situation than most of us can ever hope to have.
I come from a background of rearing livestock, which is at one end of the food chain. We have heard this evening from people who have concerns about food all down the chain as far as the question of waste food. It is good that we have had so many contributions from those who sat on the recent committee that produced the Hungry for Change report, and particularly good that we have heard from its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who speaks with great authority on these matters.
I add my support for Amendment 161, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Many of us would like to see the question of a review of food security addressed as soon as possible but, given the scale of the changes that have been wished on agricultural production, anything that is laid down at this point can only be very sketchy. I think that a duty to report every three years is a realistic target; rather as my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, it tends to have a bit more impact than a simple annual review.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on including a chapter on this subject in the Bill. For the past 40 years, our agricultural policy has been able to ignore this question, as from the start it has been the kernel of the common agricultural policy and that is what we have followed. Now we have to set our own parameters.
Many who have spoken have mentioned the many reports on this topic. I would like to mention where our food security stands at the moment, as calculated in an annual report, the Global Food Security Index, produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. In 2019, it awarded the UK a ranking of 32nd in a study of 113 countries. Even so, that puts us at the tail end of most other European countries. Those leading the index are the Republic of Ireland and the United States. Perhaps we should heed that our rating was already dropping from the previous year.
The concern now for the industry is whether this new support mechanism will see us land up by trailing even further than that present estimate. If any review of food security is to have meaning at a practical level, it will also have to be broken down into categories of the main commodities. I ask my noble friend the Minister: will the Government give us some idea of where they intend to turn at the start of this process?
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and wide-ranging debate. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that this is probably the most important set of amendments to the Bill.
Certainly from the public’s point of view, whether it is national food security or household security, there is nothing more important to people than keeping food on the table. We have always left the provision of food to the private sector to manage and it has ensured a supply of food very well, even during the early days of the pandemic when things were challenging, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. However, we are also all aware that its efficiency has come at a price —a price to the environment and to the viability of farms.
Household food insecurity is clearly a growing problem. For many of us it really is a stain on any claim to be a civilised country when a growing number of people are simply unable to eat. Many noble Lords have raised that point.
When the Minister summed up at Second Reading, he said:
“However, in our view food is a private good; it is bought and sold”.—[Official Report, 10/6/20; col. 1830.]
I am sure he has got the message clearly from the last couple of hours that many in your Lordships’ House would challenge that view, and clearly believe that the Government should have an overall food plan in the same way that they have strategies and plans for energy and transport, for example. As drafted, the clause nods in that direction but for many of us it does not go far enough. These amendments begin to move the Government in that direction.
I fear that what is proposed in the Bill is essentially an historic, backward-looking document. A five-yearly report has some uses but there is a real missed opportunity to do much more. More regular reporting would help to spot trends and potential problems sooner, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, pointed out, so whether the parliamentary scrutiny is on a three-year or an annual basis, as set out, there are merits in thinking about doing this more often.
The value of the good co-operation between central and devolved Administrations was a theme picked out by many noble Lords, and is of course very sensible. I was particularly struck by the strategic context put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the potential dislocations between the devolved Administrations and England.
The key amendments are Amendment 163 and Amendments 171 to 173. They would begin to turn this document into a genuine strategic plan, which can ensure for us a secure supply of affordable food that does not trash the planet. These points were made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Amendment 169 raises the important question of food waste, which is a significant environmental issue as well as a social wrong and a financial burden. Food waste on farms is largely driven by supermarket contracts and, as I proposed in earlier amendments, it should be dealt with under the groceries code. My noble friend Lady Parminter was quite right to emphasise the importance of good data. The 2014 EU sub-committee inquiry into food waste, which I chaired, found unequivocally that organisations which start to measure food waste start to do something about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made that point about hunger: if you measure it, you act on it.
Several amendments in this group all seek to turn this historic document into something of real value to the public, to farmers and growers, to the food production sector and to retailers. This would require thinking right across government, whether about the health of the nation, trade policy, migration levels or levels of benefits and the national living wage. I have a lot of sympathy with this idea of the need for an independent body on the lines of the Committee on Climate Change, and I hope we can consider that further on Report.
I would urge the Government to consider very carefully what has been said by noble Lords today. I am sure that the Minister has understood the strength of feeling on this issue expressed in the Committee, and I look forward to his reply.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what in many respects has been a heartfelt debate. References to words like “important” set the tone in which your Lordships have spoken. I am very mindful of your Lordships’ recent report Hungry for Change. In that context, I understand all the sentiments that have been expressed.
In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment and for speaking to Amendments 161 and 162, I should say that it is this Government who have brought forward the food security provision. I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and others for at least saying that the Government have brought this forward. Having heard some of the commentary of noble Lords, I could wonder if that had ever been the case.
As I have previously stated, the food security report will be a significant body of work that will use a set of core measurements and indicators for each of the key topic areas. It will go beyond what food security data we currently publish. This will allow consideration of the trends, many of which are slow-moving and do not change significantly year on year over a longer period. Taking a holistic approach, we will consider food security in its complete form, from the global availability of food to UK availability and access. We will use data drawn from a blend of national and international data sources, including UK national statistics as well as data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
The requirement to report within at least a five-year period allows time to observe key trends from a variety of sources. This would not be possible over a significantly shorter period. While we are committing to reporting within at least a five-year frequency, we consider this a maximum period. When we are able to publish the first report will depend upon a range of factors, including the availability of statistical data. Of course, we certainly will not wait for the end of the five-year period to publish the first report, which will include analysis of the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic.
Some of the datasets that will be considered in the food security report are published and made publicly available annually; certain noble Lords know very well that all this data is reported annually. Defra officials routinely track these reports to spot any unexpected or significant changes. For example, the excellent Agriculture in the United Kingdom statistics that Defra publishes alongside departments in the devolved Administrations come out annually, as do the world food production and calorie statistics produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Government intend that the report will consider these and less frequently produced data to provide deeper analysis to help us identify longer-term trends to support the development of policy for the future—a point remarked upon by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her unparalleled experience of the food industry, and indeed by my noble friend Lady Chisholm in her important contribution.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. We have had a very well-informed, thoughtful and wise debate on these issues. I also thank the Minister for his, as ever, detailed and thorough response to the amendments. We welcome the inclusion of Clause 17, but it has some of the hallmarks of something added at a late stage. The more you start to put things of that kind in a Bill, the more questions you raise than answer. The Minister was at great pains to list everything that would be included in the food security report, but more of those need to be spelled out in the Bill. All the contributions from noble Lords about needing a more comprehensive plan, with tighter targets and more regular reporting systems, were well made. I ask the Minister to reflect on those issues and on whether more of them can be put in the Bill.
A number of noble Lords raised concerns about the devolved nations and disparities in food growing and food poverty around the different nations, with the complexities of an internal market for food developing within the UK. Without going into detail on that, I recommend our Amendment 290, which is in one of the groups we may get to this evening and proposes setting up an agricultural co-ordination council. This would not only provide a framework for the devolved nations to discuss agriculture but bring together issues around food production. It is a valid point that I hope we will address in that later group. I agree with all the noble Lords who talked about food insecurity, in particular household food insecurity and food poverty—they should be part of food security reporting.
Finally, I pick up and reiterate our arguments for a national food plan. As I said when I introduced it, our amendment was drafted before the Lords report, but I recommend the report to noble Lords and particularly to the Minister. Some of its key recommendations could form the framework for a national food plan in the Bill. We have talked about the Dimbleby report, and I know that interweaving the timing of all this is not ideal, but the Government have accepted that there should be a national food strategy. We would like to see a requirement for this in the Bill, backed up by the detail of the plan and the recommendations in the Lords report.
I genuinely hope that the Minister will reflect on that aspect of this debate, because something like this will probably come back. It was perhaps my noble friend Lord Rooker who made the point that, if the Government do not do it, it will happen anyway. I hope that the Government will take the lead in co-ordinating that, perhaps talking to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others involved in the committee about how their recommendations could best be brought forward in the Bill. I am sure people will co-operate with the Minister, but this cannot be left as it is. Time is moving on and I am sure that people do not want me to talk any more, but it is not the end of this issue. For the time being, 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 174. I remind noble Lords 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. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 174 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 175.
Clause 18: Declaration relating to exceptional market conditions
Amendment 174
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I first thank the Government for including this chapter on intervention in agricultural markets and exceptional market conditions, as set out in Clause 18. The purpose of Amendment 174—I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for their support—is entirely complemented by Amendment 285, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The latter amendment refers to Wales, but both amendments deal with ensuring that financial assistance can be provided to the farming industry at times of crisis caused by natural phenomena and in chronic situations, alongside the acute economic situations already covered in the Bill.
Why is there the need for this amendment and to probe the Government in this regard? While I welcome the provision in the Bill, which would allow the Government to provide financial assistance where there is a disturbance to markets of agricultural commodities causing producers to face reductions in income, I am nevertheless concerned that the Bill as drafted will not provide the Government with sufficient ability to intervene in markets where disruption is being caused by environmental factors, such as weather. This year has been quite extraordinary and is a great example of how environmental factors can cause precisely the conditions set out in this amendment. For example, we saw floods in late winter, right into January and February this year, only to be replaced more recently by potential drought. These matters continue on a chronic rather than acute basis, which would cover, for example, animal diseases such as bovine TB.
The amendment does not require the Government to intervene in these widened circumstances but provides a mechanism for them to do so, which seems sensible in a Bill that contains so much about providing the Government with the powers to act when necessary. Not having the power to intervene in markets where environmental or chronic issues prevail could render the Government impotent in responding without bringing forward further primary legislation. It must be better to ensure that powers are available now, on a forward-thinking basis, rather than having to take powers at the time an issue needs to be addressed.
My noble friend the Minister, in concluding the last debate, referred to comments made by other noble Lords about the implications for food companies. We must recognise here, and in the previous debate, that we are talking about farmers and the conditions that farmers have to meet, not those on the food shelves of supermarkets and others. The farmers are of necessity exposed to all sorts of pests and pestilence and I believe that they need the measures set out.
I pay tribute to those charities that will reach out to help farmers in the circumstances set out in this amendment. The Yorkshire Agricultural Society, the Farming Community Network and the RABI do outstanding work. One great regret from the pandemic is that there will not have been any country shows that bring the rural and farming communities together. I also want to recognise the role that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty play. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has explained this issue extremely clearly. Essentially, Amendments 174 and 285 would greatly improve the definition of when exceptional market conditions exist, which would be a very sensible thing to include in the Bill.
My Amendment 176 would prevent financial assistance in exceptional market conditions being given to producers who do not meet animal welfare standards. I set out the arguments for restricting this assistance in the debates on previous groupings but, in short, public money should not be given to producers who fail on animal welfare—in fact, such producers should not be in business at all.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who speaks with such authority and passion on these agricultural questions.
I wish to speak to my Amendment 175; I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The agricultural sector has always been subject to the whims of nature and climate. However, recent years have seen an increase in disruptive weather patterns, such as prolonged, unseasonal periods of flooding, extreme cold and heat, and drought—often with different challenges at the same time in different areas of the country. We have also experienced the impact that invasive diseases, such as bird influenza, blue tongue and ash dieback, can have on plants and animals.
These unexpected, often catastrophic, events can deliver significant damage to our agriculture businesses, both individuals and whole sectors. A year’s worth of income can be decimated by one bad storm or a few rain-free months during a growing season. In Wales, the 2013 heavy spring snow is a good example; by the way, England was even worse hit then. Another example in Wales is the long summer droughts of 2018 and 2019 that caused even secure water sources to dry up and arable yields to drop significantly as water for irrigation was unavailable. These farming “natural disasters” are at such a scale that there is a case for state sector intervention of the kind that this amendment proposes—especially with the growing impact of climate change, which is undoubtedly a cause of them.
These uncontrollable factors uniquely affect the products that we grow from our land. Increasingly, it is not just the market conditions of the globalised agricultural commodity markets that affect our core industry of food and farming; it is the untameable elements of nature that are getting increasingly erratic and wild. This new reality, already acknowledged and understood when we look at actions around climate change adaptation, needs to be extended into the thinking on how we support farming businesses affected by these situations. The drivers of exceptional circumstances have changed, and we must change with them. I hope that the Government take heed of that.
Indeed, that imperative is underlined by official Defra statistics showing that our food sector is heavily reliant on imports. We export £2.1 billion of meat but import £6.6 billion, and we export £1.3 billion of fruit and veg but import a massive £11.5 billion. We are so vulnerable as a nation over our food supplies; that is made worse by the ravaging effects of climate change.
The policy objective of this Bill is admirable. It is to encourage and incentivise our farmers, the custodians of our countryside and the managers of our land, to deliver more environmental benefits from their land use and use new trade opportunities and markets to increase economic sustainability. This ambition must be balanced with a fresh look at how, when and why the Government are willing to provide additional support to a key economic sector in crisis. That means looking beyond the traditional and narrow definition of what drives economic failures. It also means acknowledging and providing emergency support tools to deal with the reality that our climate, our weather and our environment are changing and that businesses operating in the natural environment will be detrimentally impacted by factors completely beyond their control—indeed, beyond our control—including the Covid-19 pandemic, an unexpected crisis that has shaken the world economy beyond anybody’s imagination. We should be using this opportunity to make sure that we have the tools and powers in place to allow us to support those businesses if and when a natural crisis occurs, which is what Amendment 175 seeks to do. I hope that it finds favour with the Minister, who has played such a constructive role in his sympathetic handling of this Bill.
Lord Carrington
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I had great pleasure in putting my name to the important Amendment 174, and to Amendment 285, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. This amendment has the support of the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers’ Union and the CLA, together with a high proportion of farmers. They have the invaluable experience of farming the land and are well aware of the many unpredictable factors that can quickly turn a crop from profit to loss or livestock from asset to liability.
Amendment 174 widens the definition of “exceptional market conditions” to make sure that as many circumstances as possible are covered. It moves beyond global market changes to other triggers, such as severe weather and disease. The intention is not to provide an easy escape route for farmers to claim that circumstances have conspired against them. The definition remains tighter than many would wish. It is particularly important that we get this right, in view of the removal of the overall safety net of the basic payment scheme, which has protected farmers from so much volatility, often caused by exceptional market conditions, for over 40 years.
The importance of the amendment is shown by the events earlier this year when rain caused devastating flooding. Happily, the Government stepped in and support was given to flooded farms. However, the effects of this—hopefully exceptional—weather event were felt much more broadly, and the result can be seen across the country: land left fallow, patchy crops and much more. Most farmers have relied on the BPS to cover their fall in income. This sorry situation was compounded by the length of time it took the Government to repeal the three-crop rule. Desperate farmers drilled crops in unsuitable conditions to adhere to the rule, and this has caused environmental damage to soil structure and more.
It is also vital that a process exists to ensure that there are no delays in triggering intervention. The impact of Covid-19 on the dairy industry is a good case in point. Although a support scheme was implemented, it took an inordinate amount of lobbying by the industry to achieve a positive result.
Finally, I am not a lawyer, but I ask the Minister to clarify exactly what is meant by “prices achievable” in subsection (2)(b). It is surely a matter not just of price but of income too. Can the Minister confirm that it covers the situation where a farmer or grower cannot achieve the price because he does not have the product to sell, due to drought, flood, disease or other exceptional conditions?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 174, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This amendment reflects and acknowledges the situation, while also being probing. The nature of our climate is changing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, we are now facing disruptive weather conditions. In many ways, those conditions have changed our climate, in geographical terms, from a temperate one to an extreme continental pattern. I hope the Minister will consider that we now have chronic weather patterns and that financial considerations in the Bill should therefore reflect those in some way. The amendment strengthens this clause and brings it up to date in the light not only of Covid but of extreme climatic conditions, and I am content to support it.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
On a previous group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the quality of the contributions made during the course of this evening, and I echo that. It is true of the prolonged Committee stage of this Bill as a whole. The experience and knowledge that people have explored and delivered over these days has been remarkable, and I have learned quite a lot.
I speak in support of the amendments before us, particularly Amendments 175 and 176. It is clear to me that where the kind of disruption outlined this evening exists, the Government need to be able to intervene, but to do so to support the kind of farming that reflects the society we live in.
I will speak briefly on Amendment 176, because it has been dealt with previously. There is a slogan, “You are what you eat”. I think we are how we treat. At the very beginning of the debate back on Thursday 9 July —so long ago now that it is hard to remember—the noble Lord, Lord Curry, started the afternoon by talking about the educational quality of farming and the way in which children learn. In the past I have been struck, both in going into schools and with my own grandchildren, how they still believe that potatoes come from Tesco and eggs appear on Morrisons’ shelves but are not entirely clear on where they originate. The educative value of the way we treat animals is therefore crucial.
My noble friend and good friend Lord Rooker appeared on 9 July for the first time for many months and again this evening; I am very pleased to have him back. In the contribution he made on 9 July on Amendment 68—I am showing that I have been sitting in on these debates—he talked about poultry farming and the complexity, but also the importance, of the way we treat poultry and animals more generally. Linking this with the critical importance of being able to intervene—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has done in Amendment 176—is vital to ensuring that we get the balance right.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also said earlier this evening that maybe speeches were too long, so I will pause.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 174 and 285 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, Amendment 174 changes the wording in Clause 18 to remove “severe” twice and replace it with “acute or chronic”. Having checked the definition of acute—
“sharp and severe in effect”—
I think this is a better word than just severe. Chronic is even better, defined as
“persisting for a long time and constantly recurring”.
Adding at the end
“caused by economic or environmental factors”
defines more broadly the parameters when financial assistance may be given at times of crisis caused, as other noble Lords have said, by unpredictable natural phenomena such as the flooding earlier this year and drought more recently, and animal diseases. Amendment 285 extends this wording to Wales.
Amendment 175 partially covers ground covered in Amendment 174, but I prefer the broader aspect ofusb the former. I like the definition in my noble friend’s amendment of when exceptional market conditions exist.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with financial assistance under exceptional market circumstances. I have put my name to Amendment 285. All four amendments deal with what may happen in the event of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, indicated, this is not currently covered in the Bill.
These disturbances may be caused by economic or environmental factors. The most recent occurrence of a disturbance due to environmental factors was reflected in the rules for direct payments being relaxed due to the appalling wet weather in February, which prevented farmers sowing a second crop on their land. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about exceptional market conditions caused by meeting the needs of the environment, and gave some excellent examples of the wide range of extreme weather. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also referred to changing weather patterns and their effect on climate change.
In Amendment 176 the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has returned to the issue of producers who do not meet animal welfare standards not being eligible for financial assistance under Clause 19. She is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I and many other noble Lords support this amendment. It would be unpopular in the extreme with the public if those who do not look after their animals in a humane way were seen to profit due to exceptional market conditions. Does the Minister agree with this amendment and will he accept it? If not, will he say why not?
I have put my name to Amendment 285, which seeks to ensure that the farming industry in Wales is treated on the same basis as that in England when it comes to exceptional market circumstances. There can be no separate treatment for those across the Welsh border.
I imagine that everyone is in favour of this group of amendments. The only point of discussion is likely to be what actually qualifies as a serious economic disturbance and an environmental disturbance. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, reminded us of the catastrophic effect on the farming industry of outbreaks of animal disease. Are these likely to qualify? It is likely that an environmental disturbance will be fairly obvious to everyone in the country. Severe flooding affects a number of areas and the television ensures that we all see its devastating effects. Severe drought is sometimes less obvious but as fields and crops brown and are scorched by the sun, realisation will set in. An economic disturbance might go unnoticed to start with, but it will soon manifest itself—again, through social media, radio and television. No matter how this is brought to the public’s attention, they will nevertheless be interested in how the farming community is going to cope. I look forward to the Minister telling us how that is going to happen.
Lord Grantchester
I thank noble Lords for tabling their amendments to Chapter 2 of Part 2, headed “Intervention in agricultural markets” under exceptional market conditions. These clauses—18 to 20—plus their application in Wales bring into domestic legislation the powers the European Commission had to provide emergency assistance in extreme, often weather-related, circumstances. The Secretary of State may modify this retained direct EU legislation by regulations and this would usually involve intervention on storage.
I am sure the Minister would wish to have these fallback provisions included in the Bill. Can she give any guidance as to how the Government might decide whether to intervene? While a member state, the UK was not noted for being eager to apply for these powers to be exercised and assistance to be provided. Do the Government have the inclination to utilise them and can the Minister give any general criteria?
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding welfare that in the wet weather period during the foot and mouth epidemic that struck the UK 20 years ago, the Government stepped in to provide welfare in buying up stranded animals that could not be moved because of the regulations. That was directly in support of welfare. I am not sure that all circumstances would pertain to the amendment she wishes to pursue.
In the past any support has been forthcoming only very late in an emergency and some considerable distance into a crisis. What assurance can the Government give about the exercise of these powers when a timely response to calls for support can be crucial to stabilise a market?
On the other hand, private storage can be notoriously difficult to bring into operation when required. Is the Minister sufficiently confident the UK has enough capacity in the various market sectors? Data on storage capacity could be included in the food security report. There was much debate and experience last year around storage in relation to stockpiling and the possibility, which still exists, that there could be no deal reached in time for the new trading relationship with the EU to be agreed. Can the Minister outline any conclusions and lessons learned regarding those circumstances?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I begin with Amendments 174 and 285, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I recognise my noble friend’s desire to ensure that farmers are protected against chronic disturbances such as structural market changes and disturbances caused by environmental factors such as severe weather or the Covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, a number of other noble Lords mentioned their concerns. The existing powers are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered should they need financial assistance due to exceptional market conditions caused by economic, environmental or other factors. In most cases, farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating weather conditions.
There are also powers in existing legislation that allow the Government to act in exceptional circumstances to support farmers in the event of extreme weather conditions. For example, the National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 could be used to make one-off payments to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions. As we saw in response to recent flooding, the Government successfully launched a new farming recovery fund for England using powers under this NERC Act.
The particular powers in Clauses 18 and 19 are framed to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets rather than chronic conditions. The Covid-19 situation is exactly the type of exceptional circumstance that these new powers are intended to address. Another example would be the dairy crisis in 2015, when the ending of EU dairy production quotas led to increased production, global dairy prices being low and rationed sanctions on imports of dairy products from the EU significantly reducing demand. This caused a sudden and significant drop in the price of dairy products across the EU. This event was unpredictable and caused a severe market disturbance, which had an effect on prices, and future circumstances such as these could be considered exceptional market circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked what we could do to support farmers when more long-lasting difficulties appear, including the after-effects of flooding. The Government want to encourage farmers to manage their own risk and become resilient to foreseeable disturbances. The Government will help farmers to invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure, which will support high-quality research to promote innovation and productivity in agriculture, horticulture and forestry to make farms more resilient. The Bill also sets out powers to strengthen fairness and transparency in the supply chain, enabling food producers to respond more effectively to market signals, strengthen their negotiating position at the farm gate and receive a fairer return.
The second aspect of the amendment seeks to ensure that disturbances caused by environmental factors will be covered by this clause. These powers are triggered by the effects of disturbances rather than by what has caused them. The exceptional market conditions powers could be used to address severe market disturbances caused by economic or environmental factors, so long as there is an adverse effect on the price achievable for one or more agricultural products.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked what is meant by “prices achievable” under Clause 2(b). The price achievable is to be given its ordinary meaning, and includes not having a product available to sell; in that case, the price achievable on the market would obviously be zero. The current Covid-19 pandemic is a disturbance caused by environmental factors and is exactly the type of exceptional circumstance that these new powers are intended to address. We could not have foreseen that this pandemic would be as wide-reaching or prolonged as it has been, and farmers could not have been expected to prepare for the disturbances in daily life it has caused. I understand that Welsh Ministers are content that the existing powers are sufficiently broad to ensure that agriculture producers in Wales will be covered should they need financial assistance due to market conditions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, considering the lateness of the hour, I am most grateful to those who have remained, including our supporting teams. We have had a very good debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulescoomb, for her support of my amendment and for tabling her own amendment. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has confirmed that animal welfare standards are already robustly implemented. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his amendment, which perhaps was a little narrower than mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords for the points that they have made. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Northbrook for specifying the acute and chronic conditions which should be met. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about storage, we had a lengthy debate about this, but I am still not convinced about what constitutes a reservoir. However, I am sure that we can come back to that in the Environment Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 208. I remind noble Lords 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 this clear in the debate.
Clause 32: Identification and traceability of animals
Amendment 208
“(1) The Secretary of State must by order under section 87(1)(a) establish a body to be known as the Animal Food Product Traceability Authority (“the Authority”) with the functions of monitoring and regulating the labelling and marketing of animal food products in accordance with regulations made under section 35 of the Agriculture Act 2020.(1A) The Authority may be assigned functions that are exercisable in relation to England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland under section 87(1)(b) and relate to—(a) collecting, managing and making available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, or(b) the means of identifying animals.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, Amendment 208 would turn the wishy-washy wording of Clause 32 into a clear requirement to establish an animal food product traceability authority.
The need for an authority such as this is clear, the horsemeat scandal being just one manifestation of a badly broken system. It would create a trusted system of information for consumers to make better decisions on what they are eating, how the animals are treated and where they came from. The key difference in my amendment, between my wording and the Government’s, is that it would turn a power into a duty, meaning that this authority would definitely be established. I do not understand why it is not already written like that, but perhaps the Minister can reassure me on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I raise this amendment to probe the Government on the intention behind Clause 32.
Some 27 years ago, as a Member of the Commons, I moved an amendment from the Opposition Front Bench for the establishment of a cattle identification and traceability service. I did so having been prompted by the British Cattle Breeders Club. In 1998, the scheme was set up in Workington, in my former constituency, in the form of the BCMS—the British Cattle Movement Service. At its peak it employed over 1,000 people, although with efficiency savings and the application of new technology, it now employs some 400 people and is one of the largest employers in west Cumbria. It was with some surprise that we noticed reference in the Bill to
“Identification and traceability of animals”
under Clause 32. The Bill having cleared its Commons stages, I was asked to seek some assurances in the Lords.
The Explanatory Notes, in describing the proposed amendments to the legislation for identification and traceability, state:
“The purpose of the clause is to prepare for the introduction of a new digital and multi-species traceability service, the Livestock Information Service (LIS), based on a database of animal identification, health and movement data. Subsection (1) … will allow the Secretary of State to assign to a board … functions related to collecting, managing and sharing certain information in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This information is identification, movement or health data of animals. It will also allow the assignment of functions relating to the means of identifying animals such as issuing individual identification numbers to animals … These amendments enable the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) to be assigned the function of managing the new Livestock Identification Service.”
First, what is the driver behind the introduction of a new digital and multi-species traceability service, now to be called the livestock information service? Secondly, what is the construct and day-to-day role of the board in the new
“data collecting and sharing functions”?
In what sense would it be able to
“enable the assignment of functions relating to the means of identifying animals”,
and
“disapply … EU legislation on the identification and traceability of cattle, sheep and goats”?
What are the implications of that disapplication here in the United Kingdom? Thirdly, where it states that the board will be able to assign
“functions relating to the means of identifying animals”,
does that have implications for the management of the current service in Workington? On that matter, we are told that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board will
“be assigned the function of managing the … Livestock Identification Service”.
What is the thinking behind that?
Why am I asking these questions and probing Ministers for answers? I am simply trying to establish, for the benefit of the people in west Cumbria, what stands behind these proposals. At the same time, I seek an assurance that the high-quality service currently provided in Workington will be retained in the long term and will perhaps be further developed with additional services now that we are leaving the European Union.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I opposed him in 1987 and did my level best to become the next Member of Parliament for Workington, but sadly it was not to be.
I congratulate the Government and my noble friend on bringing in Clause 32 on identification and traceability of animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who will speak next, served on the Select Committee with me when we looked at the implications of horsegate, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred in bringing forward her Amendment 208, which I thank her for. That was a classic example of the supermarkets taking as gospel the food that was provided to them, and there is a very real need to bring forward the highest standards of traceability. Will my noble friend, in summing up, see whether the clause as it stands achieves the purposes he would intend it to?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because this area of animal traceability needs to be strengthened. I served in the other place under the very able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, when she was chair of the EFRA Select Committee. At her instigation, we as a committee undertook a direct inquiry into the horsegate scandal at that time. For me, that was a very instructive period and it told me that there was a need for a stronger body, an animal food product traceability authority.
Like the noble Baroness, I want to ask whether the Minister feels that Clause 32 as is significantly strong to combat the problems that could occur along the way in relation to those who may wish to flagrantly abuse animal traceability standards. Hence my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I feel we need very strong legislation and an authority equipped with the legal armoury to protect our food production. I am quite happy to support that, but seek that information from the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Lord Clark of Windermere? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, these two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, deal with the identification and traceability of animals. The highest standards of traceability are essential. The British public, whether they live in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or England, are very interested in where the food they eat comes from. Does the pork in their sausages come from Denmark and Holland, or does it come from British pigs raised in outdoor fields? Does the steak they buy for supper on Saturday come from beef cattle raised in Hereford, in Devon or north of the border in Scotland? The purchaser is generally interested, so it is important that all animal food products are properly labelled as to the country of origin.
Small independent butchers and farm shops proudly announce where the meat they are selling that week has come from; which local farm has produced the lamb, which the pork, et cetera. The information is vital to their survival and to that of the farms that supply them with meat. The proper labelling of meat and meat products is going to be all the more important as the UK enters into trade deals with countries outside the EU. I hope the Government will rise to this challenge and provide the transparency that we are all seeking and set up an animal food traceability authority.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in yet another detailed debate this evening, with expertise and enthusiasm equally displayed. The identification and traceability of animals is hugely important for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to food safety and consumer confidence.
Amendment 208 envisages the establishment of a dedicated public authority to carry out a variety of duties in relation to the identification, the movement and the health of animals, with a particular emphasis on enforcing marketing standards. Given the importance of how food is marketed, and the potential implications for public health should something go wrong, there is merit in having a body responsible for this. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for bringing the House’s attention to the work he completed in another place many years ago on the movement and traceability of animals. He rightly asks what the purpose and construct of the new data collection service is, as well as several other important questions, seeking assurance that the current high-quality service already established in Workington is retained.
The power to establish such a body and confer functions exists in the current drafting, but it would help the Committee if the Minister could outline how it is envisaged this process would unfold, including indicative timings. Will the body be created from scratch, or will functions simply conferred on an existing organisation? Is there potential for different responsibilities to reside in different places—perhaps not Yorkshire—and, if so, how will day-to-day operations be co-ordinated?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for Amendment 208. Clause 32 enables the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to run the new livestock information service, which will provide a multi-species traceability system in England. As animals can and do move across borders, Clause 32 also provides for the AHDB to exercise functions, such as handling data on animal movements, voluntarily shared by the devolved Administrations, to provide a complete picture of livestock movements across the whole UK.
The new service will replace separate species-specific systems and allow faster, more accurate livestock traceability, benefiting disease control and trade. This is a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but I emphasise, as the Minister for Biosecurity, that I place the highest importance on having as accurate as possible a livestock traceability system as we can provide. The service is not designed to cover food products or govern labelling and marketing of animal products. Powers relating to the labelling and marketing of animal food products are set out in Clause 35.
On Amendment 210, Clause 32(1) inserts new Section 89A into the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to assign functions to a body established under that Act that are necessary to run the new livestock information service. There is an existing duty under Section 97(5) of the NERC Act to consult organisations representative of affected interests. In 2017, Defra set up the livestock information traceability design user group, a partnership of interested industry and government bodies, which have been involved throughout the design and development of the livestock information service. Having attended some of those meetings, I know that the active endorsement and engagement is strong and clear indeed. Defra is consulting organisations representative of affected interests on its plans to make an order under subsection (1).
I am also well aware of the important work of the BCMS at Workington, and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for referring to its important and productive work. It is our intention to carry on using the valued staff there, who have a good reputation with farmers, as part of the new service, subject to arriving at an agreement between the RPA and Livestock Information Limited. It is worth noting that some of the work of the BCMS will transition to Scotland and Wales at the same time, as the BCMS currently serves England, Scotland and Wales.
I have tabled a government amendment requiring that the Secretary of State should secure approval from the devolved Administrations for functions of the livestock information service, such as the handling of movement data shared with AHDB by those Administrations. This amendment would enable colleagues in devolved Administrations to recommend legislative consent to their respective legislatures. These UK-wide functions are vital for purposes such as disease control.
I am very much available to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for further discussions about this new system, if there are any outstanding points. I actively endorse it and think it will be of great benefit. With those assurances and confirmations, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and especially at such a late hour—it is certainly late for me anyway. I thank the Minister for his assurances. I am afraid it is too late for me to be coherent on anything; I will pore over Hansard tomorrow to see exactly what his assurances were. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 209. I remind noble Lords that, if anyone wishes to speak after the Minister, they should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 209
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1A) An order of the Secretary of State assigning functions under section 87(1)(b) by virtue of subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of— (a) the Welsh Ministers, if the functions are exercisable in relation to Wales,(b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, if the functions are exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland, and(c) the Scottish Ministers, if the functions are exercisable in relation to Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that before making an order which assigns functions to a body that are exercisable in relation to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, the Secretary of State must obtain the approval of the Welsh Ministers, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Scottish Ministers (as the case may be).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in moving Amendment 209, I shall speak also to Amendments 261, 262 and 268 in my name. Amendments 209, 261 and 262 provide that the Secretary of State shall seek consent from the devolved Administrations for orders made relating to functions of the livestock information service which are exercisable in those Administrations or when exercising the powers in the Bill relating to organics, where these regulations will also apply in those Administrations.
We have always said that we would engage intensively with the devolved Administrations prior to making any regulations that will apply to the devolved Administrations. However, the preference of colleagues in the devolved Administrations is for a consent requirement to be added. This would enable them to recommend legislative consent to their respective legislatures for those provisions in scope of the Sewel convention. We remain wholly committed to seeking legislative consent for all provisions that engage the convention in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I am pleased to table these amendments. An LCM has now been recommended by the Northern Ireland Assembly; Welsh and Scottish Ministers are intending to seek legislative consent from their respective legislatures for these clauses.
Amendment 268 removes Clauses 42(4) and (5), which make provision for regulations requiring devolved Administrations to provide the Secretary of State with information on their classification and use of domestic support. While we consider that Part 6 is reserved to the UK Parliament, the UK Government are content with the assurances made that these subsections are not required in law, and have reached agreement with the devolved Administrations to remove them from the Bill. The UK Government maintains that this amendment now removes any Part 6 provisions in scope of the Sewel convention. It is our intention to enshrine this commitment in a concordat to be developed between the UK Government and all the devolved Administrations, which will sit alongside the regulations made under Part 6. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the government amendments to Clauses 32 and 37 are welcome. I am aware that they meet a request from the Welsh Government. Removing Clauses 42(4) and (5) is very important because it is deeply unsatisfactory that the Government could, in effect, seek to strong-arm the devolved Governments into giving up elements of their executive competence by inserting such clauses in Bills in the first place.
However, other provisions in this Bill appear to undermine the devolved Governments’ competence, and it has been notable that many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on issues affecting Wales. The process of leaving the EU and resuming international trade negotiations and our independent membership of bodies such as the World Trade Organization is placing a huge—possibly intolerable—strain on our constitution.
As the noble Lord recognised in his recent letter on Second Reading, the power to conduct international negotiations is reserved. However, the rights and responsibilities for implementing international agreements within devolved competence rest with the devolved institutions. I am aware that the Welsh Government, although strongly in favour of preserving the union, albeit on the basis of reform, have taken the view that they cannot be bound to implement agreements which require changes to legislation made by the Senedd unless they have been fully involved with the process of negotiating those agreements. That is surely only reasonable and logical.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 267, to which the noble Lords, Lords Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have very kindly added their names. It seeks to insert into Clause 40 a provision designed to protect the interests of the devolved authorities with regard to the exercise of the regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State by that clause.
I express my support for Amendment 291, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Bruce and Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am also very much in sympathy with the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just spoken to and to which my Amendment 255, which will be debated some time on Thursday, closely relates.
Turning to my own amendment, Part 6 of the Bill, of which Clause 40 forms part, concerns the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which came into force in 1995. The agreement, reduced to its simplest terms, contains three pillars: domestic support, market access and export subsidies. The EU’s common agricultural policy has been subject to its discipline ever since the agreement was entered into. That responsibility, so far as the UK is concerned, will pass to the Government of the United Kingdom when the transitional period comes to an end. That, as I understand it, and in short, is what Part 6, and Clause 40 in particular, is all about.
It has been drafted on the assumption that it will be the responsibility of the Government at Westminster to ensure that all UK policies on domestic support, including those of the devolved Administrations, are compliant with the agreement. That is because, so the argument goes, the UK will be the signatory to the agreement, not the individual nations within it. As a matter of international law, there can be no argument with this approach, but the Bill is concerned with the exercise of this responsibility within the United Kingdom. This is a matter which needs to have regard to our own domestic arrangements, and especially to the fact that agriculture is devolved.
Indeed, agriculture is not, in the case of any of the Administrations, reserved to Westminster. Therefore, as these Administrations see it, the starting point for any system of regulation to ensure WTO compliance by the UK as a whole must be that it is the responsibility of each of the devolved Administrations to devise its own system for the support of agriculture with whatever resources may be available.
When one examines Part 6 in that light, it can be seen that it fails to respect these domestic arrangements. Clause 41(5) will enable the Secretary of State, in the exercise of the Clause 40 power, to set financial ceilings in relation to agricultural support provided by the devolved Administrations of a kind that is classified as “Amber Box” by the WTO, and to establish a decision -making process for the classification of agricultural support in accordance with WTO criteria.
The Secretary of State could set limits on the amount of domestic support targeted at specific measures that the devolved Administrations were seeking to apply to meet their own objectives. Those could be at a lower ceiling than exists under the current arrangements. Reducing the amount of support given to sheep farmers in Wales and Scotland, for example, would be a matter of very great concern, given the narrow margins within which hill farmers in those countries have to operate and the formidable challenges they now face due to the collapse of the export market for wool, to take just one example.
My amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will consult the devolved Administrations when he prepares regulations under this clause. It does not go so far as to require him to secure their agreement. In an ideal world, that would of course be desirable so that all parts of the UK could work together on this matter but, given the political tensions that currently exist, asking him to secure agreement may be asking for too much. I am not asking for that, but I stress the importance of consultation so that the Secretary of State is fully informed before decisions are taken and that this is written into the Bill.
It is good that, as can be seen from Amendment 268, the Government have departed from insisting on the provision of information by the devolved Administrations about their own proposed or existing farming support, as that is their business. But consultation about steps that the Secretary of State proposes to take is essential if serious misunderstandings and, worse still, a real sense of injustice and resentment are to be avoided. I should add that NFU Scotland supports this amendment, although it would prefer that decisions on financial ceilings should be taken not just after consultation but with the agreement of the devolved Administrations.
I recall that on 7 July, replying to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the Minister said:
“Good progress has already been made by the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations in developing an administrative framework for co-ordinating agricultural policy on the basis of co-operation and mutual consent.”—[Official Report, 7/7/20; col. 1043.]
I think he has said the same thing on a number of occasions this evening. I very much welcome that but I hope that, in that spirit, he will look favourably on my amendment and I look forward very much to his reply.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who made some compelling arguments, especially about the devolved question. I endorse the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about Wales and the Welsh Government’s needs.
I wish to speak to Amendment 284 in my name. The shape and political make-up of the UK have shifted significantly since the last time we laid domestic agriculture legislation 40 years ago. When the UK first adopted the common agricultural policy, it was on behalf of the whole UK. Now, as we seek to replace that policy, we are doing so as four distinct Administrations with overarchingly aligned but divergent interpretations of what the common agricultural policy is able to deliver.
Devolution developed within the context of the CAP. The Welsh Government were given competence for agriculture policy in 1999. The strength of devolution, for agriculture in particular, is that it gave the constituent parts of the UK—areas whose topography and climate have produced vastly different agriculture sectors—the ability to shape the policy and support to suit individual needs. The flexibility to tailor individual needs while working with high-level parameters and outcomes, laid out in the framework of the CAP, was a key component of what made the policy work in terms of its structure, while delivering the careful balance between divergence and uniformity. The common overarching objectives—the commitment to seven-year funding cycles, the broad agreements on spending limits and the overall breadth and intention of the policy framework —combined to produce a competitive but level playing field. It was a structure that enabled disparate areas with different agricultural systems to address local needs while working towards strategic goals.
As the UK Government and devolved Administrations develop new agricultural policy with new policy intent, we must surely take time to consider not merely what CAP delivered but how it delivered it. While the landscape and agricultural sectors of Wales may be different from England or Scotland—or Northern Ireland, for that matter—we are unified by the need to trade effectively both internally and externally. The fundamental need to unify areas of common interest should be accounted for in this Bill.
For Wales, the most pressing issue is the ability to agree and deliver a multi-annual funding arrangement with Her Majesty’s Treasury. Multi-annual funding is key to providing stability to a sector that takes time to see the impact of any investment or delivery of any environmental outcome.
Currently, the budget for Wales is set through the annual spending review negotiation between the Treasury and the Welsh Government. An annual funding mechanism for agriculture and land management will create too much uncertainty for Welsh farmers. This lack of stability will destroy the level playing field for farmers and agribusinesses in Wales and consequently the integrated food supply chain within the UK. This is a uniquely Welsh constitutional and political problem.
In this Agriculture Bill, we have a clear opportunity to put in place steps to design and deliver a multi-annual funding arrangement that can create a common structure with shared opportunity against shared UK objectives while allowing devolved Administrations to meet domestic needs. It is the first building block to ensuring that we can accommodate and build resilience into our agricultural sector, our food and drink sector, and the UK’s national security. This is the context in which I have spoken to my amendments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
I support the amendments in my name. Amendment 289 seeks to introduce a sunset clause so that provisions relating to Northern Ireland are timebound, while allowing suitable time for the development of bespoke legislation within the next Assembly term—some time post-2022—and taking into account disruptions in future planning as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, providing a clear timeframe for Northern Ireland.
As the Minister has mentioned, Clause 45 and Schedule 6 refer to the devolved regions and, in that respect, to Northern Ireland. While the schedule provides much-needed certainty in the short term, Northern Ireland is still left without a long-term vision for how agriculture and the environment will be supported in the future and without clarity around what outcomes a future policy framework should aim to deliver.
This is despite widespread recognition from stakeholders that the current system is not fit for purpose. Northern Ireland is facing considerable challenges in terms of species and habitat loss, agricultural GHG emissions, poor water quality and marked volatility, among others. The way we manage our land use will directly impact on our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change as well as helping meet a range of other environmental commitments.
There is a need to reform how we farm and manage our land and move towards a resilient, profitable and environmentally sustainable farming sector. The need to outline a future direction of travel for Northern Ireland is of paramount importance. Currently, a risk exists that the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule could continue indefinitely, and this would result in the long-term continuation of direct payments in their current form, which have been criticised by a range of stakeholders and do little to address the numerous crises facing farming and the environment. While the provisions in the Northern Ireland schedule are similar to those that apply in Wales, there is an important difference: the Welsh provision will expire in 2024, while there is no sunset clause outlined for those relating to Northern Ireland. This is largely due to the fact that the Bill was created in the absence of an operational Assembly. We have now had an operational Assembly since 11 January this year and, in fact, this amendment has already been discussed by the DAERA Assembly Committee in Northern Ireland, which supports it. It is also supported by the Nature Friendly Farming Network.
In that regard, I thank the noble Lords who signed my amendment, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Hain. I know that other noble Lords also support it, so it is important to noble Lords that the presence of a sunset clause relating to the Welsh schedule creates an onus on the Welsh Government to develop domestic legislation in a time-bound manner. The absence of that sunset clause relating to the Northern Ireland schedule creates a risk of the development of a future agricultural policy framework for Northern Ireland being further delayed—hence my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I very much support her points. She can add my name to the list of those she mentioned as supporting her amendment. Again, I declare my registered interests, as I did in earlier Committee debates.
Government Amendment 209, on identification and traceability, which recognises the need to work with the devolved Governments, is of course welcome. I know that this provision was requested by Welsh Ministers. However, this group of amendments goes way beyond identification and traceability. As I indicated in the debate on the very first group of amendments in Committee, I acknowledge that my Amendment 291 sits more comfortably with Amendment 290 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which proposes an agricultural co-ordination council; perhaps we will hear the arguments in favour of that later in this debate.
In fact, that amendment then stood as the lead amendment of a group that lent itself to such a purpose. Tacking Amendments 290 and 291 on to government Amendment 209 makes less sense, but we are where we are. However, I very much add my support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. The theme has already begun to emerge and it goes way beyond Amendment 290.
None the less, the general setting in which these two amendments arise represents a dimension much broader than the agricultural setting. The issue of a UK single market replacing the European single market goes to the heart of the relationship between the four nations of these islands. If Westminster gets this wrong, it will have far-reaching constitutional implications. However, addressing the issue in an agricultural context is a good starting point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, emphasised a moment ago, the whole rationale of devolution was to create political structures that can facilitate different policies in different parts of these islands, responding to the different needs and circumstances that exist. That is most certainly the case in the context of agriculture. Because of our mountainous terrain in Wales, the nature of our agriculture is different from that of England, as indeed is much of the farmland of Scotland. Northern Ireland is again different, with its links to the Irish Republic and into the European single market. Our farming in Wales is much more dependent on the livestock sectors—sheep, beef and dairy farming. Unless a free trade agreement can be reached before the cliff edge of 31 December is upon us, our departure from the EU will have absolutely devastating effects on our agriculture, particularly our hill farms, as has been mentioned in several debates in this Committee.
It is totally inconceivable that any Welsh Government of any party or combination of parties would stand by and allow the devastation of our rural life that would ensue. They would be expected to intervene—that would be a political imperative—but, of course, intervening to help Welsh agriculture in such dire circumstances would inevitably have a knock-on effect on agriculture in England and Scotland. Likewise, initiatives by Westminster to help any particular sector in England would have consequences for the other three devolved regimes, so there must be a framework mechanism for the UK single market. On that much we are probably agreed across this Committee.
The problem is to determine the nature of that mechanism; that becomes a political question. The nationalist Benches in the other place are sometimes taunted that we are happy to see our nations conceding power to a European single market but not to a British single market. That gibe ignores the geopolitical reality within the UK compared with that within the EU. If all the rules and priorities within the EU single market were dominated by a single member state—Germany, say—and the German Government had a veto over all other member states, the EU single market would have long since collapsed.
Our fear, shared among many and across parties in the devolved Parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, is that England will insist on determining the policies and priorities of the UK single market at the expense of the ability of the devolved Governments to secure and implement policies needed by their own people—in this case by their own farming communities.
To that extent, Amendment 290 provides a requirement for unanimity between the four Governments in making any changes to the framework; that is welcome. It had been my hope that by the time we were debating these issues in the context of this Bill we would have made progress on the general trading structures alongside which any agricultural provision has to exist. We are not there yet, though there may perhaps be a greater indication of government thinking before we get to Report on the Bill. We may therefore need to come back to it.
In conclusion, I press upon the Government to approach this whole issue from the viewpoint of seeking an agricultural framework compatible with a broader framework of relationships between the four nations of these islands and to accept that, if there is to be a stable ongoing relationship, it has to be based on a partnership of equals. A larger population does not give any nation the right to impose its policies on all others, or we would now be acknowledging that China—by dint of its size—has a right to impose its will on the international order. A framework solution within the UK will inevitably have some form of federal or confederal relationship between the nations of these islands, based on transparent and equitable mechanisms and underpinned by mutual respect, not population size.
I hope that, by the time we come back in September, the Government will have developed their thinking along these lines. If they do not, it bodes very badly not just for co-operation within the agricultural dimension but for the future constitutional outlook of the four nations of these islands.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I will keep my comments very brief. I have already spoken to similar Amendments 147, 148 and 154, highlighting the risk of these potential cost-cutting and corner-cutting clauses—but I welcome the opportunity to prompt the Minister to reassure me, as he so often does.
Trade Bill
Tuesday 21st July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 July 2020 - (20 Jul 2020)