House of Commons
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We are all shocked and saddened to learn of the incident in which a young person was seriously hurt on their way to school in Suffolk today. Our thoughts are very much with the young person, their family and the whole school community at this difficult time.
Free speech is a fundamental underpinning of Britain’s liberal democracy, and universities should always do as much as possible to champion it, ensuring that students, staff and visiting speakers are free to explore a range of ideas and challenge perceived wisdom. We are exploring a range of legislative and non-legislative options to ensure that this is the case.
Felicity Buchan
If universities are not prepared to enforce free speech, is my right hon. Friend prepared to legislate to ensure they do?
Gavin Williamson
Many of us take free speech as an absolute given and expect it to be an absolute given in every part of this country, and if legislation is required, that is what we will do. But it is not just at universities that we sometimes see a challenge to free speech. Conservative Members understand the importance of free speech, whether in universities or a free press, and that is why we will always be the ones who stand up for a free press so that people can enjoy their newspapers every single day.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
We are working across government and closely with the higher education sector, utilising the higher education taskforce I have created, to ensure that the vast majority of students who want to go to university this year can do so at the university their grades unlock.
Mr Sharma [V]
Universities need financial support to expand physical buildings and facilities and to fund the expansion of wellbeing and support services and other important areas of university life. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this additional support will be granted to ensure that his algorithm does not cost thousands of students their futures, and when will he do this?
Michelle Donelan
Last week in fact, we announced a £10 million capital fund to cover capital as well as equipment. This is on top of our announcement for additional funding to support high-cost subjects and the announcements we made in May for the sustainability of the sector and is supported by the package of £280 million from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Mr Dhesi
In a recent National Union of Students survey, 55% of students reported that the income of their parents or those who provided financial support to them had been negatively impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, and 80% were worried about how they would cope financially, not to mention since part-time jobs will be in short supply. Given that the university hardship funds were not designed for such demand, what extra provision will the Government make to ensure that universities can properly support students facing hardship?
Michelle Donelan
If a student is not already accessing the maximum loan and the income of their parents or carers has changed, they should fill in a change of income form with the Student Loans Company. On the hardship funds, we have worked with the Office for Students so that they can show more flexibility, and this will amount to £256 million for the coming academic year.
Holly Mumby-Croft
My constituent, Hannah Moat, is one of the top high-jump athletes in the UK and was on track to study psychology and criminology at Loughborough University. Unfortunately, owing to a clerical error that someone made when inputting her centre-assessed grade, she has so far been denied her place on that course. Will the Minister work with me to make sure that students such as Hannah who have been affected by administrative errors made by their schools will not be denied their place at university?
Michelle Donelan
I am really sorry to hear about the problems that Hannah is experiencing. The exam boards have committed to turning around appeals quickly, and Hannah and her school should inform the university of the situation. I have agreed with all universities that all students, including those successful on appeal, with the required grades will be offered a place at their first-choice university and that deferred places will be offered only as a last resort. Specific admissions cases are the responsibility of individual institutions, but I will alert Loughborough to this case.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I share the serious concerns of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies that the annual mass migration of millions of students to university means that significant outbreaks of covid-19 are “highly likely”. Universities have worked hard to make campuses covid secure, but the Department must take responsibility and ownership of this crisis and recognise that most students live, work and socialise outside the campuses. When will universities and communities receive the updated guidance on safe reopening promised in a DFE press release late on Friday night? What additional testing capacity is being deployed to keep staff, students and communities safe, and will the Minister make a statement this week on the safe reopening of universities?
Michelle Donelan
SAGE did indeed publish its updated guidance on Friday, and the Government will issue updated guidance this week that supplements our original guidance of months ago. The safety and wellbeing of university staff and students is always our priority. As SAGE pointed out, there is also evidence that physical and mental health will be impacted if universities do not open. Universities have worked hard to ensure that they are well prepared for covid and have prioritised safety and wellbeing, including by introducing numerous social distancing and covid-secure measures.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The return to school is an important opportunity to support pupils to increase their physical activity. The Department’s guidance includes information on how schools can provide physical education and opportunities for pupils to be active, including links to detailed advice from the subject organisations.
Alison McGovern
I think that is a disappointing answer because we know that, going into this crisis, councils were already having to deal with the fact that they had had £42 million cut from their sports budget, which has a knock-on impact on schools. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to put on record what he personally is going to do to increase funding support to make sure our kids are physically active at school?
Gavin Williamson
It was a Conservative Government who introduced the sports premium, and it is a Conservative Government who are ensuring that £320 million is going out to schools so they can ensure that youngsters have the kind of activity they want to see. Returning to school, yes, is incredibly important for the learning that all children benefit from, but it is also about the physical health they will get from being back at school. We are backing this with that money and ensuring there are great sports activities in all schools right across the country.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Exams will be available in all GCSE, AS and A-level subjects in the autumn. Schools and colleges that accepted entries from private candidates, including home-educated students, in the summer should enter those who wish to sit an exam, and there should be no financial barriers to doing so.
Mark Pawsey
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I want to raise with him the issue of my constituent Ella Hampson, a year 10 home-educated student. She was due to take several GCSEs a year early, but the decision to withdraw private candidates meant that, unlike her friends and her peers, she was not given estimated grades on GCSE day. That caused a delay, and she has not been able to move on to college in the way that she had hoped. In any event, she has been told by her exam centre that she needs to be 16 on 31 August, so is not eligible for the autumn examinations as she is only 15. What advice can the Minister give Ella about how to get the grades to recognise the work she has done this year?
Nick Gibb
Private candidates who were entered for the summer series or where the school intended to enter them for the summer are eligible to enter the autumn series. The candidate’s age is actually not relevant. We expect the school or college that enters students for the summer series to enter them for the autumn.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Robert Halfon—and welcome back.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many thousands of private candidates, including mature students and those undertaking resits, have been left without a grade under this year’s exam arrangements and unable to progress to the next stage of their education or employment. Will the Minister ensure that UCAS predicted grades are confirmed for all external candidates, provide them—just to confirm—with the option to sit autumn exams free of charge, ensure that the highest grade of the UCAS result and autumn resit will be awarded, and urge universities to honour their offers for a September 2021 start date? Will he allow those external candidates who have received a centre-assessed grade to appeal their results?
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend raises some important points. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities said, universities are being flexible on entry to universities this year. Schools, colleges and further education colleges are able to provide additional support to students sitting their exams in the autumn if they have the capacity to do so. Schools can also now use their pupil premium funding to support these pupils. The autumn exams are an important backstop to the summer grade process, and we are helping schools to offer them to students by assisting with additional space and invigilators, where required.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Colleges are facing financial uncertainty as a result of covid-19, and many face reductions in commercial income and uncertainty with apprenticeship starts. We have a team, including skilled finance professionals, who are working closely to support colleges, and we are also working with banks to ensure access to commercial lending where required. Since April, only five colleges have needed to access emergency funding.
Gill Furniss
Further education colleges provide lifelong learning, and they will be essential if we are to provide the levelling up agenda that the Prime Minister speaks so fondly of. However, coronavirus has left many with a black hole in their funding. We understand that it could be as much as £2 billion, and at the moment we are facing unprecedented demand. I fear that the Government do not understand the value of further education to the economy and the new skills we require in this country. FE colleges are flexible and adaptable, and they can help many young people who have been let down by this Government during the fiasco of the GCSE and A-level results. Will the Minister confirm today that she will look into this and provide the necessary funding, which, according to the Sixth Form Colleges Association, should be £4,760 per year for 16 to 17-year-olds and 18 year olds?
Gillian Keegan
Let me assure the hon. Lady that we absolutely have FE colleges at the very heart and centre. We are planning a big reform of the sector, and as somebody who went to FE college myself from the age of 16, I am absolutely passionate about this area. The colleges have done an amazing job in responding to covid-19 to support students throughout coronavirus. We continue to pay the grant funding and monthly payments for 2019-20, and will do so for 2020-21. We have also provided catch-up funding of £96 million for small group tutoring for those disadvantaged students who need it. On top of that, we have allocated £200 million to enable FE colleges to improve their buildings. We have a team of officials right now working with every college that needs that support. We are working with 40, and so far only five have needed financial assistance, but we will keep this under review.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Government’s own commissioner for further education has warned that as many as 40 colleges are currently at risk of running out of cash, and despite the measures that the Minister has just spoken of, the Association of Colleges is warning of a £2 billion cash shortfall. We also know from the May report that the Government have inadequate mechanisms for identifying colleges in crisis, so the truth is that all those measures that the Minister speaks about simply are not enough. We need far greater action if we are going to see our colleges and their pupils and staff not being let down and left in financial crisis this autumn.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Just so we are clear, we have provided grant funding to the FE sector, with more than £3 billion for a full year, and it gratefully received that. We have also announced an increase of funding of £400 million for 2020-21, an increase of 7% in overall funding. As he rightly said—and I said in answer to the earlier question—we are working with 40 colleges to structure their finances and helping them to get the advice and support they need. If they need emergency funding, as has been available, it will be available to them as well. We have a team of people working on this all the time, and the colleges accept that we are putting our arms around them to ensure that they get through this period.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Exams are the best and fairest way of judging students’ performance. Following the difficulties experienced with awarding grades this summer, we are determined that exams should go ahead next year. We are working with Ofqual, the exams boards and other stakeholders to consider our approach to ensure that they are fair.
Mr Sheerman [V]
The Minister is the one permanent feature in the Department for Education—he has been there for 10 years—but surely he must admit that many families and students were hurt by the chaos and instability in his Department. It is no good trying to blame Ofqual and Ofsted; the responsibility lies in the instability and lack of firm leadership in his Department. What is he going to do about it?
Nick Gibb
When we were aware of the problems with the A-level results, we took swift action. Ofqual decided to move to centre-assessment grades and within 48 hours of that decision being taken the recalculated A-level grades were sent to all schools. The GCSE results on the new basis were also given to schools to enable them to give them to their students on the scheduled day, 20 August. The model used to ensure we were able to give students qualifications, notwithstanding the fact that we had to cancel exams because of the pandemic, was supported in a wide-ranging consultation by the regulator. It was supported by 89% of respondents, and a similar model was used in all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The fiasco surrounding last month’s exam results caused huge distress to students, their parents and teachers, and chaos for universities and colleges. Now it turns out that the Secretary of State was repeatedly warned of the dangers of the system of calculated grades and the flawed standardisation methodology he adopted. He was warned by a former senior official of the Department, he was warned by the regulator and he was warned by what happened in Scotland. Why did he ignore those warnings?
Nick Gibb
Those warnings were not ignored. Every time we heard from people such as Cambridge Assessment, Jon Coles and others, we raised those issues with Ofqual. All the various challenges made by individuals were raised with Ofqual. We were assured by the regulator that overall the model was fair. We pressed Ofqual strongly on the appeals arrangements that would address any issues for individual students which arose as a result of the operation of the model. No model is as accurate as young people taking the exams themselves, but when the A-level results were published on 13 August it became clear that there were anomalies and injustices in the results that went beyond the anomalies we had been made of aware and for which we had put in place an enhanced appeal process. As I said earlier, swift action was taken to ensure that all young people got the just and fair results they deserve.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
We understand that ensuring adults can access the training they need is vitally important and more important than ever. Latest figures show that between August 2019 and April 2020 over 195,000 learners, out of a total of 1,624,000 further education learners over 19, benefited from support for the unemployed. We are supporting people by investing £1.34 billion in 2020-21 in adult education and we are investing £2.5 billion over the course of the Parliament in the National Skills Fund.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for her response. The Centre for Ageing Better highlights that the number of older workers on unemployment-related benefits more than doubled to over 600,000 in July. The Minister will know that the core adult education budget is still frozen in cash terms at last year’s amount. Those who are recently unemployed or redundant and who want to access training or retraining to upskill often cannot afford it, or risk losing universal credit if they do so. She will, I am sure, not want that to sum up the Government’s approach to lifelong learning, so will she meet me, Ruskin College and West Thames College to hear about the issues we are facing in Hounslow, an aviation community, and to give people hope so that they, too, can have the opportunity to move forward and get back into work?
Gillian Keegan
We are, of course, absolutely committed to helping everybody who may find themselves looking for a job during this period through no fault of their own, to have access to training at any age, at any stage. That is why the Chancellor set out his plan for jobs to give businesses confidence to retain, hire and get careers back on track. That includes £1.6 billion of scale-up employment training support and apprenticeships. We are investing in high-quality careers provision, incentivising employers to hire new apprentices, tripling the number of sector-based work academy placements and doubling the number of work coaches. We are also investing £2.5 billion, which will be available in April 2021. I am sure the colleges will be very much looking forward to that. We are working to make sure that everyone has access to training. I am, of course, very happy to meet colleges and will be very happy to do so with the hon. Lady.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The Government will fund local authorities for our free childcare entitlements for the rest of this calendar year at the pre-covid levels of attendance, even if fewer children are present, so early years providers will continue to benefit from the £3.6 billion investment in the provision this financial year. We have also announced supplementary funding of up to £23 million for maintained nursery schools, which often care for higher numbers of disadvantaged pupils, and will continue to work with local authorities to monitor the sector.
Ms Buck
I thank the Minister for that answer, but last week research was published by the TUC showing that four out of 10 working mothers either did not have or could not rely on childcare to enable them to return to work. Of those, a quarter could not rely on having a nursery place. Given that there is already a £660 million gap in early years funding, what is the Minister doing to make sure that we do not see a further loss of early years providers in the coming months?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Childcare is vital for working parents, which is why this Government introduced the 30-hour entitlement and why we are investing £3.6 billion in early years this year. Breakfast and after-school clubs are also able to open and schools should be working to resume this provision from the start of this term. We have updated our guidance for providers. Any parent who may be struggling to find early years provision should contact their local authority, but I hope the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the funding for maintained nursery schools, including three in her constituency.[Official Report, 14 September 2020, Vol. 680, c. 2MC.]
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Ministers and officials have been in regular contact with representatives of schools and academy trusts on all aspects of the Government’s covid response, including financial issues. Schools have been able to claim funds to meet certain additional costs and we are providing £1 billion in catch-up funding.
Chi Onwurah
Schools in Newcastle went back this week and teachers have spent the summer working incredibly hard to make them covid secure while dealing with the exams debacle. Sacred Heart school in my constituency tells me that it has had to alter classrooms; it has bought visors, face masks and sanitisers; and it has had to increase cleaning rotas and produce online video guidance for every year group. This has cost tens of thousands of pounds, following years of budget cuts. The Minister cannot give them their summer back, but he can give them their money back. Will he do so?
Nick Gibb
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the headteachers, teachers and other staff up and down the country who have worked tirelessly to get their schools ready to welcome back students in a safe way from this September. Schools have been able to claim for unavoidable costs incurred between March and July caused by the pandemic that cannot be met from the school’s existing resources—up to £75,000, depending on the size of the school. Core schools funding this year has risen by an additional £2.6 billion. That is part of a three-year settlement, which is the biggest funding boost in a decade. Although of course we keep these issues under review, our priority for additional funding has been to put the maximum possible into catch-up funding—some £1 billion—to schools to enable them to help young people to catch up on their lost education.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is disappointing. It is extraordinary that back in July the Schools Minister told me that the Government did not consider it necessary for schools to make significant adaptations to their sites to enable them to welcome children back to school this autumn. That is not what headteachers are saying. They have told me that they are very concerned about the extra costs that schools are facing in relation to covid-19 for hand sanitisers, signage, barriers, cleaning and the support and teaching staff that they may need to cover covid-related absences. What steps will the Government take to ensure that all schools can be reimbursed for covid-related costs, and what would he say to those headteachers who are now openly saying that they are having to weigh up pupil safety against financial stability?
Nick Gibb
We have, as I said, announced a generous three-year settlement for schools. It is the best funding settlement in 10 years, with £14.4 billion over three years. Schools that are in financial difficulties can approach their local authority and the Education and Skills Funding Agency, which will provide support for schools that are experiencing difficulties, including the deployment of school resource management advisers. Schools and academies have £4 billion of cumulative reserves, and we expect those to be used first, but we keep this issue under review, and our regional teams are constantly monitoring whether schools are struggling to provide the hygiene and all the other measures that schools are putting in place right across the country.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We continue to do everything in our power to ensure that all children and staff can be back in the classroom safely. Our guidance is clear that if schools implement the actions set out in the system of controls in our guidance, they will effectively reduce risks in their schools and create an inherently safer environment for all to operate in.
Matt Western
I want to place on record my thanks for the professionalism and efforts of all our teachers and senior leadership teams across the country, who have done such an amazing job over the weeks; I am sure that that is echoed across the Chamber. However, just in the last week after the start of term, we have had 46 cases in schools across the UK and 86 cases in Scotland. A total of 158 schools already have cases. In a Suffolk school—I think it is in the Health Secretary’s constituency—five teachers have tested positive, and the school has had to close. Is the Secretary of State confident that the Government have this under control?
Gavin Williamson
Very much so. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the joint letter by the chief medical officers of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in which they pointed out that children are best served by being in school, but he is right to highlight the risks and challenges of children returning to school. That is why, at every stage, working right across the sector, we have put in place the strictest level of controls and a system of controls, in order to create a safe environment for not just the children and those who work in schools but the community as a whole.
Taiwo Owatemi
Last week marked the long-awaited return to schools for many students and young people across Coventry North West. However, this was a time marked by anxiety for parents, students and teachers about what school would look like during the pandemic. I have had a number of constituents contact me about being cramped into small spaces and a lack of support for students with pre-existing medical conditions that put them at greater risk of contracting and responding badly to coronavirus. What allowances or provisions have the Government given schools to keep students with pre-existing medical conditions safe, and will they stop passing the buck to schools and make face coverings compulsory in communal areas in secondary schools?
Gavin Williamson
At every stage—when we saw over 1.6 million children return to school before the summer holidays, and as we see the full return after the summer holidays—every precautionary measure that can be taken has been taken to ensure that the needs of children of all ages, including those who suffer disabilities, are properly catered for. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me about specific issues, I would be happy to look at them in detail.
Paul Howell
Getting our children back to school is critical. It is vital that there is not just safety in school but safety and capacity within school transport. I know from talking to local family coach operators such as J&C Coaches in Newton Aycliffe that the environment for coach operators is particularly challenging. While the postponement of the implementation of the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations for school transport provides some relief, it is still a sword hanging over coach operators and their future viability. If a longer-term viable option is not signposted, this could result in them withdrawing from the market, reducing capacity when precisely the opposite is needed. The current approach drives excessive costs for coach operators and, by extension, local authorities. While I endorse the need for accessible transport, can the Department work to make this more fit for purpose for school transport?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue and highlighting the concerns of his constituents and coach operators in his constituency. Dealing with the issue of children getting to school as schools fully return has been important. That is why the Department for Transport made over £10 million available to build capacity in local authorities, and that is why we made over £40 million available to local authorities to provide extra transport. The issue that he raises has been a concern for many MPs, and as a Member of Parliament in Staffordshire, I know that it is one we have highlighted with the Department for Transport. The DFT’s decision to delay the implementation of these regulations was a positive move, but I will ask a Minister in that Department to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
In local areas where restrictions have been implemented, we anticipate that schools will usually remain fully open to all. There may be exceptional circumstances in which some level of restriction to education or childcare is required in a local area. In those situations, local and national partners will carefully consider the most appropriate actions, with the aim of retaining as much face-to-face education as possible.
Bill Esterson
I presume that when the Secretary of State says “open to all”, he does not mean people who have tested positive for covid.
There is a great deal of confusion among children, parents and our wonderful school staff about what the arrangements are in the event of a local lockdown or an isolated outbreak, and of course that extends to what the arrangements are for home learning. Will the Secretary of State please tell us where is the guarantee that all children who have to study from home will have access to broadband? Where is the guarantee that all staff will have the capacity to deliver home learning? Will he tell us what happened to the laptops that were promised months ago to enable that to happen?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that we distributed more than 200,000 laptops, as well as more than 40,000 internet router connections, for children from the most disadvantaged communities. They went to local authorities and multi-academy trusts— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “They never arrived.” I suggest that he takes it up with his local authority, to which they were sent directly.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the continuity of education. That is why, on 2 July, we outlined our expectations of what is required of schools in terms of the delivery of continuity of education. That is why we have made an investment of a further 150,000 laptops, which will be provided for communities that are not able to provide face-to-face teaching within schools. To be absolutely clear, schools will only ever be closed as an absolute last resort. We all understand, on both sides of this House, how important it is for children to be benefiting from being in school with their teachers and learning in the school environment.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
In addition to the pupil premium, the £350 million national tutoring programme will provide affordable, high-quality tuition to disadvantaged pupils in schools and colleges. The catch-up premium provides a further £650 million to schools to make up for the lost teaching time of all pupils.
Scott Benton [V]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the recent data highlighting the learning gap between rich and poor secondary-age pupils demonstrated that the disparity is wider in Blackpool than in any other part of the country. I know the Government are determined to close the gap, so will he join me in calling for additional resources to schools in opportunity areas, such as Blackpool, that have particularly acute challenges?
Gavin Williamson
It was a great pleasure to join my hon. Friend in visiting St George’s School in Blackpool South to see the amazing work being done there to raise educational attainment in his constituency. He is right to highlight the important role that opportunity areas can play. That is why we have already invested £6 million in the Blackpool opportunity area, and why it was a pleasure to announce, just a short time ago, that we are investing another almost £2 million in the Blackpool opportunity area, on top of all the extra investment we are making in terms of schools and the covid catch-up fund.
Nigel Mills
Does the Secretary of State agree that the key to tackling this issue is to start early? Will he commend the role of nursery schools in that provision, and can he find a way to give them a long-term sustainable funding settlement so that they can plan for the future?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend tempts me into a discussion that I probably have to have first with the Chancellor, but he is absolutely right to highlight the important role that early action and early support plays in children’s lives. That is why I was delighted to see that we will take action to invest in the Nuffield early language interventions, which have already shown that they can deliver so much for youngsters. Building on that into the future is an important part of the work that the Department is doing with our schools and so much more.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The Government have announced a catch-up package worth £1 billion, including a catch-up premium worth a total of £650 million, to support schools to make up for lost teaching time. That is in addition to the national tutoring programme, which is targeted at those children who are most disadvantaged in all our constituencies.
Andrew Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. There has been huge variation in the amount of school missed, often caused by the amount of online learning available and the capacity to access it. The amount of catch-up needed is therefore individual and diverse, and that is challenging for both families and teachers. How is my right hon. Friend supporting schools in their assessment of individual need and their response to it?
Gavin Williamson
I very much point to the work of the Education Endowment Foundation, which we issued with our guidance. It has undertaken evidence-based work to ensure that, while schools will make the assessment of the individual needs of children and what help and intervention can be put in place for them, there is clear guidance on what works in the classroom environment. That might mean extending the school day for some; it might mean Saturday classes for others. There are so many different interventions that can deliver significant results in terms of helping youngsters catch up on the learning they have lost.
Chris Skidmore
My local authority, South Gloucestershire Council, was the first in the country to implement a recovery curriculum to support schools, working with experts from a range of fields and taking in international examples to get children back into the classroom. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating South Gloucestershire Council and all the teachers on their hard work to provide vital support for local pupils, and encourage his Department and other local authorities to consider this model as potential best practice?
Gavin Williamson
I very much join my right hon. Friend in congratulating South Gloucestershire Council on the work that it has been doing and rolling out across schools in its area. I would be delighted to look at that work and maybe to meet my right hon. Friend and colleagues from South Gloucestershire Council to understand some of the work that has been undertaken and what we can use from that to roll out in different parts of the country.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The pandemic has been challenging for all families, but it has been particularly challenging for children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families. We have published a range of guidance to support children, families, carers and educational settings, and I wrote an open letter to all children and those who support them last week. We are increasing high-needs funding by £730 million next year on top of this year’s £780 million, which is an increase of nearly a quarter over the two years, and providing additional catch-up support on top of that.
Rob Butler
Special schools for physically disabled children, such as the superb Pace centre in my constituency, have faced especial challenges over the past few months. How will my hon. Friend ensure that, as term gets under way, they receive advice and support that is tailored to the specific physical needs and circumstances of their pupils and the wider circumstances of their families, so that all children, whether they are disabled or non-disabled, can benefit from a full and varied education?
Vicky Ford
I thank all the staff at Pace and special schools across the country for all that they do. We have worked with the sector to provide detailed guidance, which we continually update as needed, and we will continue to do so going forward. Those who need tailored support will be glad to hear that specialist therapists, clinicians and other support staff can attend school sites and provide those interventions as usual. In terms of our £1 billion of catch-up funding, there will be three times more going into special schools than into mainstream schools.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
Many children with special educational needs and disabilities will find their return to school after a prolonged period of absence extremely challenging. The Children’s Commissioner for England has warned that Government guidance on school exclusion could encourage a zero-tolerance approach to challenging behaviour that may result in children with SEND who are struggling to readjust being excluded in large numbers. Can the Minister reassure me that she will not allow this to happen, and will she commit to reporting to the House the number of children with SEND being excluded from school as the term progresses?
Vicky Ford
Permanent exclusion should only ever be used as a last resort and must be lawful, reasonable and fair, and that is why we have already asked all schools to be understanding of the needs of all children and young people, including those with SEND, especially as they return. That is exactly the point I covered in my open letter last week to all children with SEND and their families. Off-rolling is never acceptable and will be monitored by Ofsted.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Since last week, schools across the country have begun welcoming children back into the classroom with a range of protective measures in place. I thank all teachers, support staff and the whole school community for making it such a positive and pleasurable experience for all children.
Felicity Buchan
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what support his Department is giving to universities and schools to help them recruit foreign students?
Gavin Williamson
A great and important strength of our university sector has always been its ability to attract students from across the globe, and we have been working with Universities UK and all universities to ensure they are properly supported. We are supporting them with a campaign to attract more students to the UK and working across Government to make sure that students applying for visas can do so with ease. The Home Office has been incredibly supportive in ensuring that for those who want to come and study here it has been a positive experience.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last month, the Prime Minister ordered parents back to work, and while it may not have occurred to the Prime Minister, I want to draw the Secretary of State’s attention specifically to their need for wraparound care at the start and end of the school day, where parents tell me there remains a gaping hole. Can he set out precisely what he is doing to ensure that working parents’ need for wraparound care will be met?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the importance of wraparound care. We are working with all schools to ensure it is provided to parents. We have issued guidance setting out how this can be done safely and cautiously and in a way that works for those who work in schools and, importantly, for the children who benefit from this wraparound care as well as the parents who depend on it.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important case in her constituency. Uppingham Community College is actually covered by risk protection arrangements, and I know that officials in my Department are working closely with it to see what is needed in order to ensure that there is provision. I know that Baroness Berridge would be delighted to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss in more detail some of the particular issues that she faces in Rutland and how we can best support her and, most importantly, the provision of education in her constituency.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Gavin Williamson
I would be more than happy to meet with such a delegation, and I know from my own experience of having a child who arrived prematurely some of the challenges that can come about. I would be very interested to listen and to see what more can be done to provide support in the future.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I know that as a former teacher my hon. Friend was itching to get back into the classroom if there was a need for extra teaching support. He was ready, willing and most certainly able to do so had the call come. He will probably have seen that schools in his constituency are seeing a more than £47 million cash increase, which will be followed in the next financial year by a substantial cash increase, and then in the third financial year there will also be a substantial cash increase. Schools were one of the few areas, if not the only area, that were able to get a three-year deal, and I believe this will have a real impact in helping them plan for the future delivery of the best education.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his offer to step in for any supply needs schools may have, but he raises a very important point. I would be happy, if it is possible, for him to meet with the Minister for School Standards if he has particular details or concerns so that we can take them up. I am not aware of the situation that he outlines, but it is important to keep an eye across all of this. We have been very clear in our guidance that we have issued to schools, and we need to ensure that that guidance is properly considered by all schools but that people do not develop it in ways in which it should not be developed.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend raises the important point of young people’s mental health and the benefits they get from going to back to school, college or university. That is why we have worked incredibly closely with not just the school sectors but the university sector to ensure that that return is done in a safe, cautious and planned way, and I give thanks for all the work done in the higher education sector. We do recognise that covid has presented some quite challenging mental health problems to many young people as well as staff, which is why we announced a £9 million fund to support additional enhanced mental health work to support those who work in and those who benefit from being in the education sector, students included.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I will certainly go back to the Department and immediately check why the hon. Member has not received that letter. I can only apologise for it not arriving.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We have funded the National Association for Special Educational Needs on behalf of the Whole School SEND Consortium to work to recruit teachers to deliver high-quality teaching across all types of special educational needs, and that support is available to all schools. We also funded targeted support, focused on particular areas of concern flagged by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. We are putting £730 million into high needs next year, coming on top of £780 million of additional funding this year, which means that high needs funding has increased by 24% in just two years.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
We do want all children to return to school, and to return to school safely, including children with special educational needs and disability. We have given guidance to schools, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), has written an open letter to parents of children with special educational needs about returning. Where there are families who have particular concerns about the safety of returning, the advice we give is to talk to the headteacher, who hopefully will be able to provide them with reassurance.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
Maybe in anticipation of the question, Cornwall College has already been a beneficiary of £1.4 million of extra money heading towards it as a result of our commitment to putting more money into further education in capital build. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the college to discuss further their plans for St Austell and to hear about how they want to transform educational outcomes for those not just in St Austell but more widely in Cornwall.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Gavin Williamson
I very much agree with the fact that there needs to be a robust regulatory framework around any use of algorithms. Algorithms are used every single year in the management of grade boundaries as youngsters are awarded both GCSEs and A-levels. That has always been the case and will always be the case.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
It has been incredibly impressive to see the turnaround at West Nottinghamshire College and the work that has already been undertaken. I would be more than happy to work with my hon. Friend to see what opportunities can be created in the future for this college, which has had some difficult times, but is very much looking to the future with optimism and with a real sense of purpose in delivering the very best for young people in his constituency.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Nick Gibb
I am very happy to meet the hon. Member. This was an issue that we discussed at great length with the regulator. We wanted to find a way in which those students could be awarded grades, notwithstanding the fact that the summer series had to be cancelled. However, for some students who do not have a relationship with a school, it was not possible for them to have centre-assessed grades. That is one of the reasons why we put on an autumn series of exams in all subjects across GCSEs, A-levels and AS-levels to ensure that they have the opportunity to take their exams this year.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Bungay High School on its new specialist facility, and I pay tribute to him for his passion and his support for a GCSE in British Sign Language. I do remember meeting Daniel Jillings and his mother who made a compelling case. As this is a brand new subject at GCSE, we have been taking care to consult experts very closely on the detail of the subject content. The covid pandemic has affected the timeline for developing the GCSE, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that work has now been resumed.
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.
International Travel
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about international travel corridors.
In June, 14 days’ isolation was introduced for travellers arriving in the UK, with a small number of workers’ exemptions. This action has helped to ensure that the sacrifices of our nationwide lockdown were not wasted, and it has played a part in keeping our infection rate lower than elsewhere. At the same time, we set up the Joint Biosecurity Centre and tasked it with pulling together intelligence in order to assess the risks of inbound travel from hundreds of territories. By July, the Joint Biosecurity Centre’s analysis helped to inform our decisions to establish travel corridors, meaning that people could return to the UK from low-risk countries without quarantine.
Of course, we all know that this dreadful disease takes instructions from no one. Even with our increased understanding about how covid preys upon and capitalises on close human contact, we can still be taken aback by its speed of transmission, whether at home, through the imposition of local lockdowns, or abroad, where a country suddenly sees infection rates take off. I am the first to admit that the unpredictable nature of the virus can take us all, holidaymakers included, by surprise. As I landed in Spain on my family holiday, I was immediately joining a ministerial call during which I helped to impose 14 days’ quarantine on Spain, thereby effectively terminating my break—but more importantly, sadly, disrupting the holidays of tens of thousands of Brits in Spain and elsewhere. I know how distressing this has been—but I also know that the hard-won gains from the earlier days of this crisis must not, cannot and will not be sacrificed. Ministers will continue to take proportionate action informed by JBC analysis.
During July and August, we did not have the means to accurately assess risks within countries and within regions. The kind of comprehensive Office for National Statistics data that we now have through their testing was never available overseas, and it was too easy for the virus to migrate between regions without borders or boundaries. However, as JBC resources have strengthened, we have been able to collaborate much more closely with other Governments and their health authorities. This has led to a more forensic picture. Now, for the first time, we are able to consider a granular approach to assessing detailed data abroad. I have looked at whether this means that we can implement regionalised systems for international travel corridors, but in many cases the international data is still simply too patchy, and in all cases there is next to nothing to prevent people from moving around within a country’s border.
People will rightly point out that infection rates also vary across the United Kingdom—indeed they do—but the difference is that all the countries we are talking about have, by definition, higher rates of infection than we do. I hope the House understands that the JBC and the Government are therefore at present unable to introduce regional travel corridors from within the geographical boundaries of a nation state.
However, where a region has natural boundaries, such as an island, the risk diminishes significantly, and that presents us with a real opportunity. Our passenger locator form, combined with NHS Test and Trace, will, and has started to, give us a clear picture of exactly where infections are coming from. As a result, I can today announce a new islands policy. For the first time, we have the data and the capacity to add and remove specific islands from quarantine, while still providing maximum protection to the UK public.
There are thousands of islands across the globe—far too many for JBC to monitor on a detailed level—but it may assist the House if I outline the four guiding principles that we intend to apply. First, the regionalised approach can only apply to land that has clear boundaries or a clear border—in other words, an island. Secondly, the data collected must be robust, reliable and internationally comparable. Thirdly, the island must have direct flights from the UK, or at the very minimum, transport must be able to take place through quarantine-exempt territories. Fourthly, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travel advice should align as far as practicable with the policy.
The JBC methodology for islands that I have described has been developed in consultation with the chief medical officer and Public Health England. This new capability means we will now be able to nuance our decisions, first and foremost to safeguard the health of British citizens, but also to enable British tourists to enjoy trips to islands, even if the mainland is deemed too risky. However, it is worth noting that the policy will not necessarily open up additional islands immediately. For example, when we removed Spain from the travel corridor list, there were 24 cases per 100,000 people. Today there are 127 cases per 100,000, and the rate remains too high in the Balearic and Canary islands as well.
On the other hand, Greece remains within our travel corridor programme, but our new analysis shows that some of the islands are well outside the parameters. Indeed, despite overall Greek infection levels being lower than ours, Scotland has already felt compelled to add the entirety of Greece, including the mainland, to the quarantine. However, using our newly acquired JBC data, we are now in a position to remove Greek islands where holidaymakers are at risk of spreading new infections back home. Seven Greek islands will therefore be removed from the travel list at 4 am on Wednesday 9 September, while mainland Greece will be maintained.
I thank our medical experts, who have forged these professional relationships and improved capacity. However, I want to make one thing clear: travelling during coronavirus is not without risk, so those who do so should please go with their eyes open. Remember that breaching quarantine is not only an offence that can gain you a criminal record, but you are also putting the lives of your loved ones at risk, as well as the loved ones of those you have never met before.
I know there is considerable interest across the House on testing at borders to see whether we can remove the necessity to self-isolate at all. It sounds completely logical, yet, as the chief medical officer reminds us, it simply will not capture most of those who are asymptomatically carrying coronavirus. As you know, Mr Speaker, those who are symptomatic should not be travelling in the first place.
The point was brought home to me in a conversation with the head of one of Britain’s major airport groups. He decided to trial airport testing for himself and a group of eight returning holidaymakers. They all tested negative. After a week in quarantine, they took a further test and one of their group was positive. This illustrates PHE’s point that, due to the incubation period of this disease, and even using highly accurate tests, the capture rate of those carrying covid-19 may be as low as 7%, leaving 93% of people who are infected free to go about their business, more likely—most likely, under those circumstances—in the misguided belief that they do not carry coronavirus.
However, quarantine combined with testing is more promising. We are therefore working actively on the practicalities of using testing to release people from quarantine in fewer than 14 days. For the reasons described, this could not be a pure test-on-arrival option, which would not work. However, my officials are working with health experts with the aim of cutting the quarantine period without adding to the infection risk or infringing our overall NHS testing capacity, which now also needs to cater for schools going back and universities returning. The islands policy becomes active immediately, and I will of course update the House on quarantine testing in the coming weeks. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Transport Secretary for prior sight of the statement, although I should say for the record that it arrived only five minutes before it was due to be made. I am not sure that is quite in the spirit of things, and it might be worth taking that back to officials to make sure it does not happen again. However, I should say that he made the effort to give me a call today, which is appreciated.
The Government’s response to the covid-19 crisis has been nothing short of chaotic. At almost every turn they have lacked a clear strategy, and that failure has been acutely felt in aviation. For months, even when the virus was at its peak, millions of passengers were coming from all over the world without any restrictions placed on them at all. By the time restrictions were introduced, we were one of only a handful of countries in the world that up to that point had failed to take action to put them in place. It is this pattern of the Government being too slow to act, coupled with blunt interventions to overcompensate, that has dogged the handling of the pandemic right from the outset.
First, there was a blunt quarantine for all, bar France, but then France was back on. Then air corridors were on the table; then they were not. What we then saw was not really air corridors, air bridges or whatever name is given to them, but essentially a list produced by the Foreign Office, half of the countries on which had placed restrictions on British travellers going there—no travel corridor or air bridge at all. Now we are seeing countries coming and going off the list, with very little notice for those who have decided to go on holiday and incurred the cost of doing so.
It is all very well for the Government now to change position and tell people that they should travel with their eyes open. It was not that long ago that the Government were defending a very senior member of No. 10 for driving for an eye test, let alone going with eyes fully open. The British public are not stupid. They understand fully the pandemic and what it means to everyday life, but people work hard, and they are desperate to return to a sense of normality. For many, that one holiday a year is something they save up for and look forward to, but they cannot afford a 14-day quarantine to be imposed with very little notice.
We need to see when the data was really made available. We all know that localised and regional data is made available across Europe, so why was it not reviewed when the decision was made in Spain, for instance, to have the restrictions on the islands? The point was made at the time and the Government did not move, but it strikes me that the evidence base was in place, so it makes sense to publish that evidence in the House of Commons Library, so that it can be reviewed.
We need to make sure that we do not take this intervention all the time. It appears chaotic because it is chaotic. There will not be a single intervention in itself that will keep this country safe; it will be a number of interventions taken together that make us safe, and a key part of that is testing. Frankly, it is beyond belief that people arrive in this country from all over the world without any tests being carried out, either at the airport or five days later. It is important that we now carry out a full review, not just of quarantine in the very blunt sense that the Government approach it, but also to ensure that a proper test and tracking system is in place. In my town, the national contact tracing system has failed to get through to half of those it should have made contact with. When we have that infrastructure and such weak performance, it is little surprise that the Government are constantly going from one crisis to another.
Aviation is on its knees. The limited support offered by the Government has meant job losses all over the place, in a sector that was always going to take longer to recover than other parts of the economy. The Government knew that, but even with the money given over to the airlines, where are the conditions to protect workers’ rights? It is a scandal that hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being given out with no conditions to protect the workers at British Airways or easyJet, and the rights that they have built up.
Labour’s position is clear. We have set out a plan for a sectoral deal, with six key conditions, supporting jobs, tackling climate change and providing fair play on tax. It is important that the Government now come forward with a proper sectoral deal. We will absolutely work in partnership, in the national interest, but the Government cannot continue to go from one crisis to another, because key to beating the virus is maintaining public support. I have to tell the Transport Secretary that we are in real danger of losing that support.
Grant Shapps
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not getting the statement to him. I do not know why that happened, and I will make inquiries. As he mentions, I did call in advance, unrelated to the statement itself.
This is not a virus that any of us control, beyond the way in which we all behave individually and the extent to which we all have contact that we perhaps should not be having. It is easy to come to the Dispatch Box and be a professor of hindsight, saying, “You should have done this. You shouldn’t have done that.” If the hon. Gentleman could explain to me how he can find out that one week Jamaica will have three or five cases per 100,000 and the next week be breaching 20 cases per 100,000, even though the Joint Biosecurity Centre, Public Health England and all the other experts were unable to predict it, I would be the first to welcome that kind of detailed information and knowledge. It does not exist. I believe that no country in the world has combined as much information as has been pulled together here in order to work on a detailed island policy. In fact, it is difficult to think of another country in Europe that is doing more testing than the UK now, with testing capacity of a third of a million tests per day, going up to half a million today. I was speaking to my opposite number from France, who told me that there they would reach 400,000 tests a week—in this country, we can do that in a day and a half.
Our NHS test and trace system, combined with the passenger locator form, has enabled us to extract very specific data to know where infections are coming back from, and that has been extraordinarily useful. I reiterate—I cannot say it any more clearly, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say it again—that in these times when we travel we must accept that we have to go with our eyes open. I gave the example of Jamaica, but, unfortunately, the same thing exists everywhere else. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Is he saying that we should not have travel corridors at all and we should prevent everybody from travelling? That cannot be the case, because he tells us that he wants to support the aviation sector. In which case, some kind of corridors must be open, otherwise we would not be supporting it.
That is why we have pumped an enormous amount of money, via the British taxpayer, into supporting the aviation sector. Off the top of my head, 56,400 members of staff are using the furlough scheme, which will add up to well over £1 billion. There is a £1.8 billion fund, the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility, which has supported aviation-specific companies and there have been all manner of other funds, including the coronavirus job retention scheme, from which £283 million has gone to the aviation sector.
Of course we want the aviation sector to get going again. As I mentioned towards the end of my statement—I will come back to the House on this— testing is a part of that, but I also explained the complexity of testing on day zero. I did not hear whether that is what the Opposition Front-Bench team are calling for, but there are significant issues with testing on day zero in a manner that will not necessarily find those who are carrying the virus but that will convince lots of people that they are not. That approach is not the answer. We are working on all those things, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with us, rather than score points from us, when everybody is trying to the right thing, nationwide, to beat this virus.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to look at islands separately from certain mainland territories. May I also ask him to give a little more detail on his thought processes with regards to testing? He is absolutely right that this has to be all about proportionality. On the one hand, there are many in this country who have forgone their holiday abroad, and it is right that they are not put at more risk of getting the virus than those who have gone abroad. Equally, there may well be the testing capability, not at day one, which we know does not work with any reliability, but perhaps a certain number of days afterwards, which could allow quarantine to be ended and the aviation industry to get much needed support. So on the scale of zero to 14 days, is he looking at about the day eight period for where there will be that proportionality on safety? Also, he mentioned that the House would know more in the coming weeks; may I push him to be a little more specific about when the House is likely to see a different approach come in?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee for his boundless work during this crisis in following up on all manner of transport issues, and aviation issues in particular. He is absolutely right that testing in all its senses is a large part of the solution to everything related, or at least it is an aid to everything related, to coronavirus, and it is extremely important that we get it right. We know that there is pressure on the testing system. Schools are going back and entire classes and years require testing, and the same goes for universities—Dido spoke about this last week. It means we need to ensure that we are prioritising that. We also know that it can be helpful for returning holidaymakers and other travellers. Day zero does not work at the airport, but testing later can work. That capacity will be an issue for the reasons NHS Test and Trace mentioned, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that I will return to the House with proposals, which are currently being worked on with the industry, for something that is both practical and workable and that people can rely on as much as the NHS test and trace system itself.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Gavin Newlands, who has two minutes.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which we also received a minute after he was due to deliver it.
We can see from all the recent data that coronavirus is currently spreading far more rapidly throughout the UK and many parts of Europe than in recent months. As a result the red list of countries from which travellers must quarantine on their return has been increasing steadily in recent weeks. Often the UK’s four Governments have come to the same conclusions on quarantining decisions at the same time. However, Scotland and Wales have occasionally made different decisions, as is their devolved right. Portugal was recently placed on the red list for Scotland and Wales, as it is now experiencing 23.2 cases per 100,000, but the Secretary of State accused the Scottish Government of creating confusion by placing Portugal on the quarantine list and of jumping the gun on Greece. Indeed, he doubled down on this in his statement today. The Scottish and Welsh First Ministers have not criticised him or his Government for their decisions on quarantine, so these are very unfortunate remarks that the Secretary of State should reflect on and perhaps apologise for.
The resurgence of coronavirus has shown that the trouble for the airline and tourism industries will persist for quite some time. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what further support for the airline industry specifically can the Secretary of State commit to, and will he actually keep his promise to the industry of specific support? If there is a second wave of coronavirus that decimates international travel again, the industry could go back to square one in terms of the pandemic. Does he agree that that makes a strong case for the argument that targeted extensions of the furlough scheme are necessary?
Further to the point that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), made, may I push the Secretary of State on the timeline for this aviation traveller quarantine testing programme? When will he bring that back to the House by? Finally, nobody travels more internationally than cabin crew and pilots, and recent weeks have seen many loyal British Airways cabin crew out of a job having refused to be fired and then rehired on slashed wages. Will the Secretary of Secretary of State apologise to those workers for failing to protect them?
Grant Shapps
Once again, I will certainly be investigating the statement issue. I am very intolerant of things being dispatched late from my office. I will write to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Members concerned to let them know what happened.
I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my passion for aviation, and I want to answer his points, but it is important to mention the need not to believe everything you read in the newspapers. I know that this will come as a shock to Members across the House, but things are not always accurately reported. I did not criticise Scotland. I simply used the example to explain that it was unable to have the granular data and had to remove the whole of Greece as a result. On Portugal, as he may have heard me say, although the incident rate was higher, the percentage of positive tests had reduced, which is why we came to different decisions. That is within our right. I have spoken to my opposite number in Scotland today and explained that will be further sharing the data to make granular decisions on islands, if that is what the Scottish Government wish to do.
I want to stress our support for not just airlines but the whole aviation sector. It is interesting that this is frequently mischaracterised as being a lack of support, but when we add it up, it comes to billions of pounds. Billions of pounds is not a lack of support. This is taxpayers’ money that we are giving to commercial organisations to try to keep them going.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about testing, I absolutely will return to the House. We have to have the science behind us to do this. It is the same with travel corridors and the island approach. We cannot return here until there is a test, for example, that will work under the circumstances described. So far, as far as I am aware, Porton Down has not approved any of the private tests that we read about every weekend in the newspaper—“It’s solved; we can just do this.” I can only work to the speed of the scientists, but I certainly will not delay.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
International visitors spend around half of the £10 billion generated in the west end alone, which is in the heart of my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to monitor and consider taking more countries off the red list as and when it is safe to do so, in order for us to be able to welcome more overseas visitors back to our shores as soon as possible?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. I am very concerned about not just the City but the cities and towns across the country that should be enjoying a far greater number of tourists, visitors and business people than they are. I will certainly do exactly what she asks. It is a fact that, at the moment, numbers—particularly from European destinations—are, I am afraid, on the rise, which has led to countries coming off the list, but most weeks we add a territory or two as well.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the scale of the challenges faced by the aviation sector and the scale of job losses, today’s announcement seems to fall woefully short of the integrated Government leadership that we need to get planes flying and give passengers the confidence to travel safely. Indeed, many local employers tell me that they do not feel the Government are really listening to the challenges that they are facing. Airports have been working on increased testing pilots for months, and they do not feel that the Government have listened to them either. When does the Secretary of State plan to update the House on increased testing, so that we can reduce quarantine times? Will he come back to the House to tell us when he can extend the measures announced today—for example, to trial flights from Heathrow to John F. Kennedy airport, with New York now having lower covid rates than other parts of the US?
Grant Shapps
I speak very regularly—including at least twice over the weekend—to the boss of Heathrow airport, John Holland-Kaye, and to businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency and all constituencies that are concerned about aviation and the issues that have been created. The simple fact of the matter is that, as I mentioned, until we have tests that are reliable enough and signed off through the PHE and Porton Down process, it is not possible to simply jump the gun, but I am very actively working with the airports. As I say, it has been a bit of a challenge to convince people on this—it sounds so simple and obvious that someone can just take a test on day zero when they land, a bit like pointing a temperature checker at someone’s head, and then we have to work through the reasons why that will not actually protect us from coronavirus. It is about doing the right things as well as doing those things quickly, but she has my assurance that I am on it day and night, and we will continue to be until we get solutions.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
In Stockton South, we have seen a small rise in the number of confirmed covid cases. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to keep the travel corridor list under constant and scrupulous review, allowing people to travel where it is safe to do so and, importantly, ensuring that we act to control the virus?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without fear or favour is the answer. Yes.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Liverpool airport in my constituency is already losing 15% of jobs in operations—jobs in air traffic control, ground handling and security, and in the airlines operating from there, such as easyJet—because passenger numbers are about 65% down on where they would normally be. Even worse jobs carnage will result if furlough is ended without a sector-specific deal for aviation. If the Secretary of State is focusing on testing to release people earlier from quarantine—there will be an ongoing imposition and lifting of blanket 14-day quarantines, whether or not the islands are included—will he undertake to ensure that there is support like furlough in place for the airports, the airlines and the aviation industry until those arrangements are put in place?
Grant Shapps
I assure the hon. Lady that we have worked very hard on the package, which is nothing that this country has ever seen before, in terms of size, scale and impact. It has saved literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs in this country. As the Chancellor said, we have to balance that with making sure there are jobs to go back to. I respect what the hon. Lady said: airports such as John Lennon in her constituency are really struggling. I spoke earlier today to the boss of easyJet, which is one of the main carriers there and is desperate to get back in the air. We cannot detach policy from the reality, and this virus is very real. Nobody has a simple solution to deal with it until we get a vaccine, but I assure the hon. Lady that I will be working very hard with Liverpool airport and the carriers that come in and out of it, and with the Chancellor, who will be speaking more at this Dispatch Box at the autumn statement, to do everything we possibly can.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the islands policy, which seems like a pragmatic, sensible thing to do, but I am sure that a lot of people who are about to go away tonight or tomorrow must be wondering what will happen when they return from their trip. My point is about the testing regime and the possibility of introducing something far more robust at airports. If there is such great capacity available in the system, as the Secretary of State suggested, why is there not a mandatory test for everyone seven days after they return?
Grant Shapps
I just want to clarify the amount of testing in the system. We have a third of a million tests a day, and we are taking that up to half a million by the end of October, but Members will be aware—this has been discussed in the past few days—that schools and universities have gone back, and pressure on testing is very real at this moment in time. I am not sure we should be prioritising returning holidaymakers in the testing system over, for example, children going back to school. The simple solution is, of course, to create more testing—that is something that I absolutely want to see happen—but that will need to come through the private sector route, which means that the tests will need to be approved and signed off on a scientific basis. As soon as that is done and we can prove the whole thing will stack up, we will be in business.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
The £160 billion of support that the Government have made available to businesses has helped many firms within the travel industry and will ensure that jobs are protected for the time being. However, many of those firms now face an extremely difficult winter period. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Treasury to look at different ways in which businesses within the sector, such as Highfield Travel in my constituency, can receive additional support?
Grant Shapps
I can tell my hon. Friend that I most certainly will. The only thing I take issue is the amount of money, which is a lot bigger. There is £283 million just on the coronavirus job retention scheme, and a lot of the travel companies will have taken advantage of the smaller loan schemes. On a smaller level again, there are things such as the bounce back loan, and that is before we get to the very, very large-scale covid corporate financing facility, at £1.6 billion, and the furlough. There have been an awful lot of projects that put money into businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere. He absolutely has my assurance that that will continue.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Two constituents have approached me who, like the Secretary of State, were already in Spain when that country was added to the quarantine list. Their employer chose not to pay the couple’s statutory sick pay—he is not required to—and that is causing them considerable hardship. Is that not unfair, and does not that lack of sick pay make it less likely that people will comply with quarantine?
Grant Shapps
As I have mentioned, no one feels this more acutely than I do, given that I effectively put myself into quarantine with that decision. Travel is something that we must all do with a degree of eyes open, accepting the risk at this time. As I mentioned again from the Dispatch Box, people will need to think carefully when they travel about whether, if the country does suddenly end up in quarantine—I explained, with examples such as Jamaica, that this can happen very quickly—they are able to quarantine afterwards. Otherwise, it might be best not to travel, and that is a judgment that everybody will make. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have also made significant moves to assist, particularly where people are in local lockdown areas.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has been contacted by dozens of his constituents, as have we all, asking whether one country or another is about to be added to the quarantine list. With that in mind, I wonder whether he might share his Department’s thinking on whether some of the Joint Biosecurity Centre’s data might be opened up, to inform those decisions by our constituents.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and when people ask me whether such and such country will be added, I usually say, “I don’t know why you are asking me. I couldn’t get it right in Spain and I went there myself, so I am probably not the best guide.” The virus moves in ways that are difficult to predict. I agree that the more information there is available, the better, and he may have seen that I have spent some time publicising and tweeting the various different measures that the JBC uses to assess the risk from each country. This goes way beyond the number of cases per 100,000 over seven days.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I appreciate what the Minister has said about the need for people to have holidays, and in my constituency, we appreciate the value of the aviation industry. Edinburgh airport has already confirmed that around a third of its staff are to be made redundant, so can the Minister assure us that the Government will take every opportunity to balance the need to shorten quarantine to support the aviation industry with following the medical evidence about what is best?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely can. I have spoken to the boss of Edinburgh airport during this crisis, and I know how difficult it is to run those businesses when people do not know what is going to happen next. Quarantine is of course a devolved matter for Scotland, and those decisions and discussions are ongoing between the Scottish Government and Edinburgh airport, but the hon. Lady has my assurance that this is certainly at the front of my mind.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that 900 Harlow residents are employed at Stansted airport, directly and indirectly. However, we have already seen many job losses at ABM Blue Handling and easyJet, which has also closed its Stansted airport base, so will he ensure that the measures that his Department is taking will protect the jobs of my constituents?
Grant Shapps
I know that my right hon. Friend fights hard for his constituents. I spoke to the boss of Stansted, Charlie Cornish, earlier today, and we discussed the measures that we have been taking and our hopes for the way that the policies can develop. One of the things he said would be helpful in this regard is the islands policy that we have announced today. This will help to protect jobs because, in time, it will enable islands to be added when the mainland would not have been flyable to, and I very much hope that that assists.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Secretary of State suggested three days ago that differences in quarantine rules between the UK nations led to confusion. The UK Government have had more than 20 years to get used to the fact that health is devolved in Wales. Will he therefore clarify that any confusion between the rules in England and Wales arises consistently from a failure on the part of his Government to communicate when their rules apply to England only?
Grant Shapps
No, that is factually incorrect. I speak to my counterparts from the other three parts of our nation every single week on various occasions, and each of us at different times has had cause to say to the other, “I’m sorry that we couldn’t have done this without you.” That that has happened with both the Welsh and the Scottish Governments at various times, so that is simply untrue; I do try to share the data. It is helpful for travellers if we can move in unison but it is not always possible. The right hon. Lady points out that there have been 20 years of devolution, but that has never meant decisions over things like quarantine in any past situation that I can think of. This has found new territory for devolution.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Many of my constituents were very grateful to get away this summer after the introduction of travel corridors. I know it has not been easy for everybody all the time, with the decisions that had to be made—my right hon. Friend knows that better than anybody—but everyone who did make that choice, and it was a choice, went into it with their eyes open, as he says. They and I will welcome what he says about islands and further granularity. I hope we can get more granularity going forward. In the meantime, can he assure me that the list of countries and islands will be kept under constant review, so we can get to more destinations as soon as it is safe to do so?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and others have mentioned it, too. I know that everyone’s constituents will be in contact to ask whether certain places will be able to be added. I am always very happy to ask JBC to look at particular countries, which I do regularly on behalf of Members from across the House, and it will put some extra time into studying those countries. Of course, it is already looking at the entirety of the world on a week-by-week basis, and he has my assurance that that will continue.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many hon. Members, I have had frequent contact from bemused constituents who cannot understand why day after day they see on their television pictures of thousands of people streaming in through our airports with neither testing at the airport, which the Secretary of State said would not be effective, nor testing a number of days later, which the Secretary of State conceded would be effective, and nor, indeed, without, seemingly, tracing of where those people are going and who they are meeting. For hundreds of thousands of those journeys it is too late, and if those people were bringing coronavirus into the country then it has now happened, but we are responsible for what happens from today. Will the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that for every single person arriving at a UK airport we know where they are coming from, we know where they are going, we know whether they quarantine, and we know whether they have the coronavirus or not and, if so, we know who they met? If not, all the talk today is moot.
Grant Shapps
The passenger locator form has been introduced. That was an innovation. It had to be brought in at great speed during the crisis, but it is now ensuring that we know where passengers are coming from. If people do not fill it in, that is an offence and they can and are being fined. When people do not quarantine—I just want to make this very clear for the benefit of everybody in the House—that is a criminal offence. If you do not quarantine for 14 days and you spread the virus around, you are endangering the people you love and others you have never even met. You can get a criminal record for that. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, we will be stepping up enforcement. In particular, I know that phone calls are made to one in five people—my wife actually, separately, got a phone call—and text messages will be sent. People should be aware that enforcement will be increasingly stepped up.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s statement and for being the strong voice for aviation that I know he is. No one wants to see a second spike, least of all one that arises from cases from overseas, but will he assure me that he will continue to explore with an open mind any opportunity, including testing, that will allow the aviation industry to return to the skies and get on with its vital role of unleashing much needed economic growth?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am a great champion of the aviation sector, as he is, and it breaks my heart to see it suffering, jobs being impacted, and the second or third greatest and biggest aviation sector economy in the world being affected. He is absolutely right to ask whether I will keep my eyes and ears open for absolutely everything that we can do. I have my officials working on that all the time, and I will return—a number of Members have asked when—to the House the moment the scientists provide the information we need to be able to take further testing forward.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Finally, the Secretary of State, in this last answer, actually acknowledged that we have a major aviation sector which is hugely important to Britain and to Britain’s place in the world. There was no acknowledgment of that in his statement, nor any acknowledgement of the 10,000 jobs that have already gone and the 100,000 jobs that are at risk. Also, frankly, the Secretary of State seems to be focusing on seeking complete risk avoidance rather than intelligent risk management. He needs to recognise that unemployment kills and poverty kills. We need to be getting Britain back to work as we go into autumn facing a national jobs crisis and, in particular, a crisis in the aviation industry. When he is going to get a move on?
Grant Shapps
I may have taken the rather presumptuous position of thinking that the House knew how much I love aviation, but I will put it on record again. As a qualified pilot for 25 years, I absolutely think it is a terrific industry. However, the right hon. Member is right about the balance between getting people back to work—he knows how hard we are working to persuade people to go back—and doing it in a safe way. I do slightly take issue with him over the idea he expressed when he talked about the risk-benefit ratio, and it is very important that we do not see another spike. We are seeing the numbers creeping up, and I think it would be unforgivable if, having got on top of this virus, we re-imported this disease back in again.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Iceland has a system whereby arrivals are tested at the airport and then five or six days later. Could that be viable in the UK?
Grant Shapps
The Iceland example is very interesting. I have seen some other countries where they have been doing day zero testing and will privately, in conversation with me, concede that it does not actually provide the answers they require. A test later—whether that is five days, seven days or eight days is to be calculated by the scientists—is a much more possible and probable solution. I gave the example earlier of what happened when one of the airport bosses had his group tested a week later, and he found somebody who already had the virus but was not picked up at the beginning, so I think my hon. Friend is absolutely on to something.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The University of York is going to extraordinary lengths to support international students arriving in the UK—from picking them up at airports to isolating them for two weeks at the university before teaching begins. However, this process could be significantly improved if a clear testing and tracing regime and testing infrastructure were put in place. The Secretary of State has said that there are capacity issues, but why has he not properly planned for this, having known the arrival programme of international students? It appears that he is shifting the responsibility on to universities to manage this situation, rather than sorting it out himself.
Grant Shapps
No, I do not accept that, because students actually come from lots of different places. Some of them will be in travel corridors and do not need to self-isolate; others will require self-isolation. But in the context of being here—for perhaps a year, two or three years—this, I hope, will be a manageable situation for them. Again, let us not pretend this is all just straightforward, and that somehow we can magic tests that are signed off and work. I remind the House again: there are no tests—such private tests have been referred to many times—that are currently signed off as being usable, and we have to be led by the medicine first.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Many of my constituents work in the aviation and travel industries, with both Manchester airport and Leeds Bradford airport within an hour’s travelling time. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State continue to do everything he can to introduce the testing regime that will not only support the aviation and travel industries, but give certainty to holidaymakers and business travellers alike?
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been incredibly heartening, during this pandemic, how our communities have come together and done the right thing. They have followed the rules, and it is great to see. However, during this quite chaotic conversation about tourism, with tourists coming back from Leeds Bradford and Manchester airports, I have constituents now contacting me on email and by telephone concerned that their neighbours are not doing the right thing. Is the Secretary of State aware of this, what is he going to put in place to protect those people—particularly in constituencies such as Batley and Spen, where, in Batley, we have enhanced restrictions—and what is he going to do to reassure constituents like mine?
Grant Shapps
I agree with the hon. Lady: it is not only wrong and frustrating; it is also illegal for people to do that—come back and break the quarantine. We absolutely will be stepping up measures, and I am working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others to secure that. Again, I will say more about it very soon. In the meantime, I send the message clearly from this Dispatch Box that when people break their quarantine, they are breaking the law and putting themselves in line for a criminal record, and it is not something that anyone should want to do.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The travel corridor policy, while clearly very upsetting for those affected who have worked very hard for a holiday, is absolutely the right thing to do to keep us all safe. Could I ask the Secretary of State to consider one change, though, which would be to move the weekly time for coming back from 4 am on a Saturday to midnight on a Sunday? Changeover, for most people, is on a Saturday or a Sunday, so most people could complete their week’s holiday without having to buy expensive flights, which they do not have the money for, and ruin their holiday. Would he at least just consider that?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that changeovers do indeed often take place on a Saturday. It might help if I explain the tensions that have to be measured off. The medical community would of course say, “Don’t leave any time at all: do it immediately”—which is virtually what happened with Spain, the very first country to be removed from a corridor—and the other view is to allow it to continue. It is a question of finding the best balance between the two that would satisfy the chief medical officer and his concerns as well as trying to get people home. I promise to undertake to continue to look at this, but I hope my hon. Friend understands and the House will appreciate the natural and proper tensions that are in place.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituents want to make informed decisions about their travel arrangements, so will the Secretary of State consider publishing the evidence and criteria by which countries are deemed to be on or off the quarantine list?
Grant Shapps
Yes, I can help the hon. Lady, because I have already, several times, published the basis for the decision-making process. The easiest way to find it is on my Twitter feed, @grantshapps, which explains the measures put in place. The data is then available for somebody to look at. We have been quite clear about where people need to go to see exactly which measures are taken into account.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
When are the Government going to give the financial support package to the aviation sector, as the Chancellor promised in March, so that we can ensure the protection of workers’ rights, particularly those at British Airways and EasyJet?
Grant Shapps
As I mentioned in previous answers, billions of pounds have gone into support for the sector, and even once all those schemes have been exhausted, there is a programme run specifically by the Treasury that enables bespoke support to the industry. I cannot go into details because those are confidential arrangements, but they do already exist.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend address international rail travel? He will know that Eurostar services from Ashford and Ebbsfleet have been suspended until 2022. Can he assure me that it remains the Government’s intention that those services should be resumed as soon as possible and that the Government recognise the importance of Kent’s international rail services?
Grant Shapps
Absolutely. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are very concerned to see those stations closing and the lack of activity. As with our discussions about airlines, this is entirely driven by the progress, unfortunately, of the virus. We will continue to keep it under review and work very closely with HS1 and that line to get them reopened as soon as possible.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister has ruled out testing at airports, claiming that it gives a “false sense of security”. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister about airport testing, or is this likely to be revisited when he updates the House on quarantine testing?
Grant Shapps
I mentioned a few moments ago the example from an airport boss relayed to me this morning where a day zero test failed to pick somebody up whereas a day seven or eight test was able to do that. That shows why a single test on arrival is not the solution, much as it is not the solution to temperature-test somebody on arrival to see whether they have got coronavirus. We need to be more sophisticated than that, and we absolutely will be. I remind the hon. Gentleman that different parts of the devolved Administrations will need to come to their own decisions on it as well.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend on the need for testing to improve and to increase. Given that in most international travel, someone arrives at the airport sometimes many hours before travelling, will he give consideration, as the science moves forward, to enabling testing to take place before people get on aircraft so that if they are showing signs of symptoms, or they actually have the virus, they are not allowed to travel at all and not allowed to infect people on the plane they were travelling on?
Grant Shapps
A sort of pre-quarantine is something that other countries are using; my French counterpart is using a 72-hour test before people arrive in France, for example. Again, you need to be certain that somebody has quarantined during that period and be cognisant of the incubation period, which can be up to 14 days with coronavirus, so it is not an entirely straightforward solution, but I do think it is worth additional examination. Again, I look to the scientists to help advise on this, and they are being very forthcoming with that advice.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
Heathrow airport has a large testing facility that is sitting idle, the UK economy is losing an estimated £60 million a day in tourism revenue, and constituencies near airports, such as mine, are in economic crisis due to covid. If equivalent countries with lower infection rates, such as Germany, can provide targeted support for their aviation sector, such as furlough extension in our case, and quick-turnaround tests—tests are getting more accurate all the time—why cannot the UK?
Grant Shapps
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady heard my previous comments about day zero testing, but Germany is one of the countries that I know has been carrying out some tests at the border, along with France, Iceland and others. Some of those countries have found that that on-the-day test is not the solution that we want it to be in terms of detecting the disease. As I said earlier, we are following the science and allowing the scientists, including at Porton Down, to look at the various tests and then provide advice about what would be a safe time, and I am working closely with the industry to try to get that in place.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the pragmatic way that the Secretary of State is proceeding. My view is that the 14-day quarantine is a bit of a blunt instrument, and I am doubtful whether everybody does it. I think that if we moved to a seven-day double-test system, it would make people safer but could also encourage more travel, so we may get a double advantage from doing that. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and all speed to him.
Grant Shapps
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. The only thing on which I disagree with him is that I think the first test is not required and will lead people, if they test negative, to think that they maybe do not need to quarantine. The test that helps to shorten would be the important one.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
How concerned is the Secretary of State about other countries placing quarantine restrictions on the UK because of the rising tide of coronavirus infection here?
Grant Shapps
I think the rises here and elsewhere are concerns for everybody. We saw with France, for example, that its case numbers went up and so far there has not been quarantine in return, but of course it remains a live issue. It is something that we in this country can all do something about by following the rules and by reminding others that this virus has not gone away and to make sure that we do not spread it.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Just in recent days, Bolton has seen the highest infection rate in the country; today it stands at 115.8 per 100,000, with local media associating the dramatic spike in cases with a British holidaymaker who went on a pub crawl after returning from Spain. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on everyone to do the right thing by staying home for the full quarantine period if mandated to do so after returning from abroad?
Grant Shapps
Yes, absolutely. How irresponsible is it to bring a disease back and then spread it around communities and put people’s lives at risk, as well as being at risk of getting a criminal record? I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that call.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions are had and what information is shared with the Northern Ireland Executive to align international travel advice as closely as possible while still accepting and respecting devolved authority? I am ever mindful that people from Northern Ireland travel from Belfast directly and use Glasgow, Manchester, Heathrow, Gatwick and even Dublin International airport for connections to further afield. Does he believe that there is a case for mandatory alignment to keep all regions safe?
Grant Shapps
As discussed earlier, there is a devolution settlement that for 20 years has not been subject to these types of questions, which are usually to do with reserved powers. They are what they are. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am in very close contact with my opposite numbers in Northern Ireland, including as recently as today, and we continue to try to co-ordinate across our Union as much as possible.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As international travel slowly but surely gets back on its feet over the coming weeks and months, will the Secretary of State look at what further support he can give to help the many, many jobs dependent on the travel industry, such as through airport slots for airlines?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend raises the interesting question of the 80: 20 rule—I think that is what he is referring to—which, at the moment, is a European competence, but from 1 January will be a matter entirely for the United Kingdom. I will be considering it very carefully to help the entire sector.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
This in-out, hokey cokey of on-off air bridges and quarantine comes without interruption. Passengers have landed at Heathrow and gone straight on to the Piccadilly line through Ealing and Acton, which is now a petri dish—we have an above-average virus rate—so can he please stop playing politics and give Transport for London the bail-out that it deserves at a time of national crisis to save the whole of London and my constituents from that second spike?
Grant Shapps
I congratulate the hon. Lady on shoehorning TfL into all this. I know that we will be having further conversations, but if memory serves me right, I have already bailed it out to the tune of £1.6 billion.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Travel corridors are a necessary, albeit blunt, instrument to control covid levels in this country, and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s further announcements today. However, does he agree that differing rules across different parts of the UK are confusing and awkward both for passengers and tourist industries?
Grant Shapps
I do accept that this adds to some confusion for people, but none the less, we respect the settlement that is in place. It is important, though, that we work as four nations as closely as possible together, and I will continue to look for opportunities and ways to do that, including through a lot of information sharing to enable us, I hope, to come to decisions that confuse people a bit less.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) did not welcome the fact that the Transport Secretary is following what was done in Wales in relation to having an islands policy. It is good that devolution is helping each different Administration to learn. Can we, though, have a look—as his hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said—at the issue of announcements at 4 am on a Thursday, rather than at a time when people can have their travel arrangements in place?
Grant Shapps
Yes, the usual pattern is in the afternoon on a Thursday with the measures then coming in at 4 am, as the hon. Gentleman says. I understand the point about the changeover date, as I mentioned before, which has to be measured against the question, “If you know there is a problem, is it right to wait and allow that problem to develop?” But it is a judgment call and I am not going to pretend otherwise. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I will certainly be reflecting on this further.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Thousands of international travellers used to come into the country via HS1 before the virus hit. Now HS1 is in a perilous position, with both Ebbsfleet and Ashford stations closed until at least 2021. Given the Department’s commitment to high-speed rail, would the Secretary of State or one of his team care to meet HS1, Eurostar and me to try to resolve this serious situation?
Grant Shapps
Yes, it is a concern that those stations are closed until 2021 and I would be very happy, with the Rail Minister, to have that meeting. It is extremely concerning and is, again, another sign of how all-encompassing the fight against this virus—it is not over yet—is. I will make sure that the meeting is set up.
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 suspend the House for three minutes.
Birmingham Attacks and Extinction Rebellion Protests
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Minister Kit Malthouse to make a statement, I should remind right hon. and hon. Members that a person has been arrested in connection with the Birmingham attacks and that they should take care not to say anything that might prejudice the trial. It may also be helpful to tell the House that, given that this statement covers two issues, I will run the statement for up to 90 minutes.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
By your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, before making a statement on the Extinction Rebellion protests, I want to say how shocked and deeply saddened both I and the Home Secretary are by the incident in Birmingham in the early hours of Sunday. Our thoughts are with the families and victims of this appalling attack. The police have made a number of arrests overnight and it therefore would not be appropriate for me to comment further on an ongoing investigation. I am in contact with the chief constable, and the Home Office stands ready to support the force in any way it needs. Just a few hours after the incident, a man sadly lost his life following a stabbing in Lewisham, and we have also seen a serious shooting incident in Suffolk this morning.
I want to reiterate before the House that this Government are absolutely committed to tackling violent crime in all its forms. We have increased police funding, provided surge funds for those forces most affected by violent crime and set up violence reduction units to identify those at risk and to intervene early. We will do everything in our power to tackle violent crime and prevent more senseless loss of life.
On Friday night, Extinction Rebellion protesters used trucks and bamboo scaffolds to block roads outside the newsprinters works at Broxbourne, Hertfordshire and Knowsley, near Liverpool. These presses print The Sun, The Times, The Sun on Sunday and The Sunday Times, as well as The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and the London Evening Standard. The police reacted quickly on Friday night, arrested around 80 people nationally and worked throughout Saturday to clear the sites completely. In Broxbourne, approximately 100 protesters were reported in attendance. Assistance from neighbouring forces was required, with work long into the early hours to ease the disruption. Fifty one protesters were arrested for public nuisance and subsequently charged with obstruction of the highway. They were taken to three custody suites in Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and London. Disruption concluded by midday on Saturday. All main roads remained open, including the nearby A10. However, there was disruption to the distribution of newspapers as well as for local businesses.
In Knowsley, a group of 30 protesters were reported in attendance alongside 10 observers, one legal adviser and one police liaison individual. Thirty protesters were arrested, with disruption concluding by 10.45 the next morning. These protesters were subsequently charged with aggravated trespass and bailed to appear before magistrates at a later date. Twenty four protesters also attended a print works in Motherwell, Lanarkshire in Scotland. In this instance there was no disruption caused and no arrests were made.
A free press is the cornerstone of a British society. The freedom to publish without fear or favour, to inform the public, to scrutinise our institutions and to stimulate debate on events that affect each and every one of us is indispensable. The actions of Extinction Rebellion were a direct challenge to this freedom and the values of liberty and tolerance that we hold dear. Extinction Rebellion claims to be an environmental campaign group, yet that worthy cause is undermined by its tactics. Its actions show that it is not interested in purely peaceful protest, dialogue and debate. Instead, it seeks to impose its view through this kind of direct action.
The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tool of civic expression and will never be curtailed by the Government. Equally, it is unacceptable for groups such as XR to hide behind the guise of protest while committing criminal acts that prevent law-abiding citizens from going about their lives. All of us will remember the disruption caused last year as the group blocked roads and major transport routes. Police forces across the country were forced to divert resources away from tackling other crime in order to oversee those occupations. It is a terrible shame to see those counterproductive tactics revived in the midst of a pandemic, when we are only just recovering from the profound disruption of lockdown. Throughout the pandemic, our police officers have been on the streets every day working to keep the public safe and to stop the spread of coronavirus. In placing unnecessary pressure on our emergency services, the actions of the protesters are contemptuous not only of the police but of the public whom they seek to protect.
The irony is that the United Kingdom is already doing more to tackle climate change and decarbonise our economy than almost any other nation on earth. The UK is the first major economy to legislate to end our contribution to climate change by 2050. Since 2000, we have decarbonised our economy faster than any other G20 country. The Prime Minister has set up two Cabinet Committees focused on tackling climate change—one for strategy and another for implementation—discussing how Departments can go further and faster in meeting our legally binding 2050 net zero target. We are also hosting the next UN climate change conference, COP26, which will take place in November in Glasgow. It would be far more productive if, rather than plotting disruption and chaos, those behind Extinction Rebellion put their efforts into working with the Government to tackle climate change and build the green economy. While they persist in their current course, however, our message to those individuals is clear: if you plan to curtail our freedoms through criminal acts, be in no doubt that you will face the full force of the law. As a Government, we will not stand by and allow the livelihoods of hard-working people to be undermined by a minority using the pretence of tackling climate change to impose an extremist world view.
Extinction Rebellion’s actions have shown how the tactics of disruptive protests are changing. The Home Office has been engaging with police chiefs to understand the challenges they face and to assess how they can facilitate peaceful protest while not causing significant disruption and infringing on the rights of others with differing views. The Home Secretary and I are committed to learning the lessons of recent protests and ensuring that the police have the powers required to deal with the disruption caused by groups such as XR. I will keep the tools available to tackle this behaviour under constant review. As always, our thanks go to the police for their tireless efforts to respond to all manner of incidents, and particularly at this time when so many have worked so hard during the pandemic. I hope that the leaders of Extinction Rebellion will issue an apology to them for actions that have been roundly condemned by all mainstream opinion in our country.
By its actions this weekend, XR has done nothing to bolster the cause of fighting climate change. Rather, it has reminded us of the value of a free press and free expression and made us think about what more we may need to do to protect those freedoms. I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I will first turn to the awful events that took place in the early hours of yesterday in Birmingham. This terrible attack in our second largest city was an absolute tragedy. A young 23-year-old man lost his life, two people—a 19-year-old man and a 32-year-old women—suffered critical injuries and a further five people were injured. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the man who was killed and all those injured in this senseless attack as well as those affected by other violent incidents in Lewisham and Suffolk, to which the Minister referred.
Like the Minister, I pay tribute to the first responders and emergency services who were on the scene rapidly to attend to the injured. They acted with dedication and bravery, and we are all grateful to them.
I would also like to pay tribute to the people of Birmingham. The police and crime commissioner for the west midlands, David Jamieson, told me this morning how calmly people were getting on with their business, despite this tragedy. That is a testament to the spirit of the people of Birmingham and the hard work of the local police to keep them safe. I also want to thank officers from surrounding forces in Lincolnshire and Staffordshire, who came to the city to help police locally and provide reassurance.
As the Minister said, this incident is the subject of an ongoing investigation, so we must not jump to any conclusions or prejudice any potential investigation or conviction. However, whenever such an incident occurs, there are of course serious questions that must be asked. What was known about the suspect, and when, prior to arrest? What systems were in place to respond to such incidents, and what systems would prevent such an incident from occurring again? As the picture becomes clearer, it is vital that these questions are answered and that any lessons are learned going forward.
More generally, all Members of the House will be deeply concerned about the wider rise in violent crime that we are seeing. As the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, I am all too aware of the seriousness of this issue. I know that West Midlands police, along with David Jamieson, the PCC, is taking this very seriously, and the violence reduction unit is doing some great preventive work in the west midlands. Does the Minister accept that over the past decade we have seen knife crime rise in every police force area in England and Wales, and that easing lockdown restrictions poses particular challenges? Does he further accept that rising violent crime must be urgently addressed?
Turning to the matter of Extinction Rebellion, I trust that the Minister will agree with me, rather than some members of his own party, in recognising that tackling climate change is the challenge of our generation. However, we also know that the free press is the cornerstone of democracy, and we must do all we can to protect it. As a result, actions that stop people being able to read what they choose are wrong. They will do nothing to tackle climate change. Those who break the law should be held to account. As the Leader of the Opposition said over the weekend, the actions of those who deliberately set out to break the law and stifle freedom of the press are completely unacceptable. Stopping people being able to buy the newspapers they choose and hitting small businesses in the process is hugely counterproductive. It does nothing to tackle the vital cause of tackling climate change. In fact, it sets it back.
On the policing response to the incidents, can the Minister confirm whether the authorities had any intelligence that these incidents might occur?
Today in the media, new laws have been mentioned by the Home Secretary. Can the Minister confirm what aspects of our current public order laws he believes are inadequate? Will he also confirm which aspects of the Coronavirus Act 2020 dealing with gatherings he believes leave gaps? Does he agree that we should not forget the many people who are concerned about climate change who wish to peacefully and lawfully protest, and that that right should be protected?
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges that this generation faces, and I am sure that many colleagues across the House have had the same experience as me. Whenever I go into a school, it is the children who want to talk about climate change and who cannot understand why we have not done more to tackle this existential crisis. The Government must do all they can to drive climate change up the agenda, and on this we will hold them to account.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks and her thanks to the police, which are very welcome, and also for clearing up a little confusion about the Opposition line on the XR protests. Her unequivocal support for the rule of law is very welcome.
On her questions, obviously there will be lessons to learn from the Birmingham attack. Like all these unusual events—and it is an unusual event, thankfully—there will be lots of analyses done post event and post the case that may be brought, if there are charges to be brought. We will then use our general networks and work in the Home Office to try to promote them in similar police forces. It is gratifying, as she pointed out, both with regard to that incident and with the protests in mind, that police forces have honed their ability to co-operate and provide mutual aid to each other very swiftly. Much of that has come out of the covid preparedness work to make sure we are able to deploy large numbers of police officers across the country if and when we need to. Certainly the response of neighbouring forces around Birmingham and Hertfordshire over the weekend was gratifying and very welcome.
In terms of the hon. Lady’s specific questions, the intelligence picture is not entirely clear. The fact that the disruption was successful would indicate there was not a police presence there to prevent the intervention. No doubt there will be questions asked about how intelligence around these protests can be improved. As part of that work, we will be looking at the tactics deployed by the protesters, not least the gluing on and locking on. That is a new phenomenon of the past couple of years, which has required the police to develop specialist teams and techniques, paradoxically using quite unpleasant chemicals to get people unglued. We will ensure that the police have got exactly the tools they need, from a legal and practical point of view, to deal with these kinds of problems swiftly.
Finally, I reassure the hon. Lady that we absolutely believe that peaceful protest is a key freedom and a key part of our way of life in this country, and we will do everything we can to protect it, but that also means protecting those who have different views from a protest group and ensuring that they can express their views, whether that is through the pages of The Daily Telegraph or, indeed, on the streets. Making sure that we have a sense of order around protest and debate in this country is critical to our freedom in the future.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Would it be possible for us to release some of the pressure on the police and the courts by, when people are arrested for breaking the law, such as blocking the highway in some of these riots, removing them from that place, giving them a fixed penalty notice and telling them that it might appear if a background check is done on them in the future, although it might not be a criminal matter? That seems to me to be something that might help, but I am no expert—the Minister is. What does he say about that?
Kit Malthouse
That is a useful suggestion from my hon. and gallant Friend. He will know that during coronavirus we have been using fixed penalty notices—not in huge numbers, given the scale of the British population, but nevertheless to some effect. The post-match analysis will have to look at what impact they have had on behaviour and compliance and see whether we could use more pre-court or police-style disposals to great effect. However, the one thing we should stress is that at the moment our view is that where a crime is committed, it should be investigated and put before the courts if at all possible. Certainly I hope that will be the case in these circumstances.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. I join him in deprecating the violence on the streets of Birmingham. Like him, my sympathy goes to the families and to the victims. We are grateful for the action by the police and agencies to address the situation and to reassure communities. Obviously due process will now apply. We also share concerns regarding violence perpetrated elsewhere, which shows why violence requires to be treated not just as a criminal justice issue, but as a public health matter.
Where I disagree with the Minister and differ from him in particular is that I very much regret his conflating that dreadful incident with the actions of Extinction Rebellion. The latter group perpetrated no violence—random or otherwise—nor is it a criminal gang, terrorist group or a deranged individual. Any attempt to portray those people as that is wrong and a dangerous precedent in a democracy. The actions carried out by Extinction Rebellion, both in Scotland and in England, were a peaceful protest. That should not be forgotten, and that remains legitimate. It is a group of young people, although not always entirely young, who care about the environment. That is a legitimate position to take. This action was not an attempt to close down free speech, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. All they were seeking to do was to disrupt the outgoing of print for a period of time. There was no cessation of the print being published. Indeed, it appeared online and at most delivery was delayed to some shops.
To equate that almost with actions such as those in Belarus and Hong Kong is fundamentally wrong. We must be very wary of overreacting. The protest replicated actions taken down through the centuries, from the Chartists, through the Suffragettes, to trade unionists and civil rights protesters, including over the poll tax. We might not all agree with Extinction Rebellion’s tactics, but we do have to accept it has a legitimate view and must be allowed to carry out its peaceful protests. Otherwise it is this institution that is threatened, as opposed to the right of free speech mentioned by the Minister.
On the acts of violence, will the Minister ensure that violence is treated as a public health and not simply a criminal justice issue, and that we must address its manifestations, on which progress has been made in Scotland? On the Extinction Rebellion protests, can we ensure that the right to protest that has been enshrined and protected in this institution and this Chamber throughout the centuries will remain? Opposing the views of particular titles is not interfering with free speech. Can I ask that the aim of this Government always be to protect peaceful protest?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman seems to be a little confused. Holding a joint statement on two issues does not necessarily conflate them. It is a single departmental statement because I have had to deal with both issues. We could have had two statements, but it might not have been an efficient use of your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, or indeed the Chamber’s. There has been no attempt to conflate the two.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has positioned the SNP outside mainstream opinion. [Interruption.] Well, you’re all expressing consternation, and speaking, smiling and laughing. I do not know why me expressing concern is worthy of derision. In truth, the vast majority of people in this country, and all mainstream parties in this country, have expressed alarm at the tactics of Extinction Rebellion over the weekend and its stated aim of disrupting newspapers’ ability to distribute their views and opinions because they do not agree with them. One of the first things that happens in extremist states and takeovers is an attempt to grip the television station, the radio station or the newspapers. Control of information is key so we need to take care with these things. I hope he will agree with me in time.
On violence and public health, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that we want a 360° approach to combating violence. As somebody who worked at City Hall between 2008 and 2012 fighting the last spike in knife crime, I know only too well the value of that approach. I held many meetings a decade ago with Karyn McCluskey, who was then running the knife crime efforts in Glasgow, in parallel with those in London, and at the time we were both successful in driving numbers down.
Finally, on the right to protest, as I said in my statement, we in the Conservative party absolutely and fundamentally grasp the fact that our individual liberty is based on a series of freedoms—freedom to associate, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, property rights—that are fundamental to our view of the world and which will remain so into the future.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I, too, extend my condolences to the family of the person who died in the early hours of Sunday morning, and wish a speedy recovery to the others injured in the senseless knife attack in Birmingham. Will the Minister join me in condemning the suggestion by the West Midlands police and crime commissioner almost excusing the attack as resulting from pent-up frustrations from lockdown, and reinforce the message that violence of any kind is completely unacceptable and that those who break the law will face the full consequences of their actions? May I also invite the Minister to make an assessment of all the additional greenhouse gas emissions that arose from the demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion? I am thinking of the helicopter that hovered from dawn to dusk and of all the additional cars.
Kit Malthouse
I find the remarks of the police and crime commissioner inexplicable. We are in a sorry place if we ever accept that the primary responsibility for a crime does not lie with the criminal. While individuals have complex backgrounds, in the end, the primary responsibility has to lie with the individual who commits the crime; that is the only basis on which we can proceed sensibly in this area.
My hon. Friend is quite right. During the protests now and last year, I have often wondered what the carbon footprint is of the helicopter, which is fundamentally required in a public order situation, or the miles and miles of stationary traffic pumping emissions into what is an already difficult situation from an emissions point of view. Those who are involved in these protests would do well to think about those issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I join both Front-Bench spokespeople in sending a strong message from this House about the importance of a free press in our democracy. Stopping newspapers being distributed in this way was completely wrong.
The Minister obviously needs to work with police and crime commissioners. I know that he will not want to misrepresent them in any way. We should all across this House send our sympathies to the families of those affected by not only the awful attack in Birmingham but the shocking shooting in Suffolk. The Minister will know that there is serious concern about the rise in violent crime. We have heard reports of some violent crimes being downgraded, to be treated with community resolutions and out-of-court settlements instead, as a result of long court delays during the covid crisis. Can he tell me what the Home Office is doing to monitor that, and could he send the latest figures to the Select Committee?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to try to provide the information that the Chairwoman of the Select Committee requested. I am not aware of that particular phenomenon, but I will certainly make inquiries. She is right that the pandemic has caused issues in the criminal justice system. The courts recovery plan being published today—it may well have been published already—shows good progress in the magistrates court and more work to do in the Crown court. She is right that we want to minimise delays in bringing people to justice in this country, and that is what colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are focused on.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the first responders who had to deal with the attack in Birmingham and those elsewhere in the country, and I also pay tribute to my local police force in Hertfordshire, which had to deal with the attempt to shut down our free press over the weekend. My hon. Friend is a champion of the police, and as the daughter of a police officer, so am I. Will he confirm that he is committed to ensuring that they have the powers, as well as the resources, to deal with the disruption caused by groups such as Extinction Rebellion?
Kit Malthouse
I welcome my hon. Friend’s unequivocal support for the police, and she is quite right that Hertfordshire police did a good job outside the printworks in freeing up that fundamental liberty. We perhaps sometimes take for granted the fact that a newspaper giving us information from across the world will drop reliably on to our doormat. It would be treasured across the world to have such a vigorous and efficient press as we do.
I give my hon. Friend my commitment that we are in constant conversation with police forces and the National Police Chiefs’ Council about honing our response to protests in the light of new and emerging tactics. Over the last couple of years, we have seen those tactics from XR, and we will have to think hard about how we can ensure that her liberties and those of her constituents are maintained, while their right to protest is facilitated.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I understand that some of my constituents were victims of the brutal attack in Birmingham on Sunday, so above all I want to join in passing on my condolences to the family of the young person killed in that attack. I cannot possibly imagine the distress, grief and disbelief they are feeling; they must be inconsolable and bereft. I also want to say to the families of the seven other people attacked, some very seriously, that I hope their loved ones will make the fullest recovery, both physically and psychologically.
The responsibility for this attack lies solely with the person who did it, but we all have a responsibility to support those affected by the attack. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that the necessary resources will be given to West Midlands police to investigate this particular matter. In addition, will he assure Members of his commitment to victims and their families being given all the support they need in the coming weeks, days and months?
Kit Malthouse
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He is right: all killings are senseless, but there is something particularly tragic about people being killed and injured who had gone into a city centre to have fun—to enjoy the night-time economy post-lockdown, never expecting to encounter this kind of awful tragedy. So I join him in extending our sympathies, and I know that West Midlands police has deployed significant family liaison resources to support families both from the city and who were visiting from outside who got embroiled in this awful tragic act.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Extinction Rebellion’s actions on Friday night were an attack on our society, our way of life and our freedoms. Having had to listen to all the commotion and speeches from my office during Extinction Rebellion’s protests last week in Parliament Square, it is clear that the group is intent on disrupting society rather than working together with this Government and their strong green agenda to tackle climate change. Will my hon. Friend ensure that activists who pursue these guerrilla tactics will feel the full force of the law for their actions?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend can be reassured that where a crime is committed, whether by a protestor or otherwise, it should and will be investigated and charges brought.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I disagree with XR’s strategy of targeting the press, but there is an irony in a Government who are renowned for avoiding the scrutiny of the mainstream media and happy to undermine the impartiality of the BBC and to welcome Fox News to these shores, now posing as the protector of free speech in order to suggest they may change legislation to criminalise peaceful disobedience by Extinction Rebellion. Is the Minister not ashamed to bracket in this statement peaceful protesters with murderers on the rampage, and will he, for the record, unequivocally acknowledge that the XR protesters were peaceful?
Kit Malthouse
I am happy to acknowledge that the XR protesters were peaceful, although crimes were obviously committed in the process of that peaceful demonstration. As I explained earlier, we are covering two subjects in this one statement more for the efficient use of the House’s resources than to conflate the two subjects.
On the issue of free speech, the hon. Gentleman gave himself away slightly by deprecating those on this side of the House for welcoming Fox News “to these shores”, I think he said; he obviously believes in free speech as long as people agree with him.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is less than three months since I stood in this Chamber the last time after similar tragic events in Reading, and I am greatly concerned that these attacks continue and would like the Minister, please, to outline what decisive action the Government are taking to stop these horrific attacks continuing.
On Extinction Rebellion, I am afraid its disruptive, costly and often illegal protest risks severely undermining the important debate on climate change and our environment; blocking roads into hospitals and the like is just not the way to do it.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about violent crime, and we all are; that is why the Prime Minister has set up the criminal justice taskforce, which will be meeting this week, and which will discuss on a monthly basis what our response to all manner of crimes, but in particular violent crime, should be. As he knows, we are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers over the next three years. We are about 4,500 into that recruitment campaign. Adding that to previous commitments, we are approximately 9,500 police officers up on 2018, which will help. We are putting money into violence reduction units and indeed into surge funding for police forces that are affected across the country. Later this month, I will be starting a series of meetings with large forces to talk to them about their murder prevention strategies, to make sure that everybody has one in place.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome, in the warmest possible terms, the very robust defence of the freedom of the press that we heard in the Minister’s statement. As he says, the freedom of our press to scrutinise our institutions is indispensable. With that in mind, and perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, I wonder whether he would agree that it was somewhat ill-advised of the Government in February to exclude a number of media outlets, including the Daily Mirror, The Independent and HuffPost, from Government briefings. Can he tell us whether we would expect to see him accepting an invitation to appear on “Good Morning Britain” any time soon?
Kit Malthouse
I know my place, and I will be deployed at the behest and instruction of my superiors to perform on screen, in the press or on the radio—wherever is required. I hope that, over quite a long career in politics—local, regional and national—I have never shied away from a challenge and my view is, “If you are not willing to go out to defend a policy, why are you putting it in place in the first place?”
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The unacceptable actions of Extinction Rebellion show a consistent disregard for the lives and livelihoods that they disrupt. Does my hon. Friend believe we should hold Extinction Rebellion to account, not just for the significant public sector costs that rack up with the action it undertakes, but for the significant lost income that businesses across the country have suffered as a result?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He is right that these protests are not costless. Aside from the costs to the businesses affected, there is a large overtime bill to be covered. Of all the costs, the most profound and alarming is the opportunity cost; those police officers who are spending time ungluing protesters and dismantling scaffolding are not spending time preventing knife crime, murder, rape or domestic violence. There are other much more vital activities that could be performed in the communities they serve.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I would like to thank both Front Benchers for their kind words about our city, and to express my deep thanks to the people of Birmingham, to its police force and ambulance service, to David Jamieson, who has been misrepresented here today, quite grossly, and to Dave Thompson of West Midlands police force. They have worked tirelessly and will continue to do so, as they always do, to keep people in Birmingham and the wider west midlands safe. The Minister said today that he would do anything and Birmingham would have the resources it needed to ensure that this crime can be detected and victims will be looked after. Will he guarantee that the uplift in police force numbers—of course, in the west midlands, in Birmingham, we have had a loss of 2,000 officers since 2010 and an uplift of only 1,200— will be fully funded for the next two years? [Interruption.] Those are the figures—absolutely. Will he guarantee that that will be funded for the next two years?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, I acknowledge the profound shock that this crime will have caused the hon. Lady’s community. I recognise her remarks and join her in expressing sympathy to all those affected, and I acknowledge the wider shock within Birmingham. This year’s uplift in police officers in the west midlands, which I believe is 366, is certainly fully funded. We have yet to decide the allocation of police officers across the country, but our commitment to 20,000 extra police officers over the next three years is unshakeable.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Extinction Rebellion’s attack on Friday night was indeed an attack on our society, fundamental freedoms and way of life. Does the Minister agree with me and with my law-abiding constituents in Derbyshire Dales, who are emailing me in droves about law and order at the moment, that activists who pursue these illegal, guerrilla tactics should feel the full force of the law immediately?
Kit Malthouse
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. She is right that all right-thinking people of this country have been outraged by tactics that are perceived as striking at one of the foundations of our freedoms. Although it might seem like a small thing, a one-off event and a peaceful protest, there is something about it that has unsettled people significantly. They want to see consequences for those who perpetrated it, and I certainly hope that will be the case.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
A member of the family of one of the victims of the horrendous Birmingham knife attacks spoke to me yesterday and again this morning. The victim was with a group of friends, and the family are very grateful to those friends, the police and the paramedics, who almost certainly saved his life. He is seriously ill now in hospital. Sadly, they were unable to do the same for the other of their friends who died.
The Minister spoke of his experience when he was at City Hall. I ask him to reflect on the fact that we still face far too many knife crime attacks, and that far too many people are losing their lives or being seriously injured. What preventive work can and should be done? Not least, what can be done to address the under-provision of mental health services, which we know about from recent knife attacks?
Kit Malthouse
I am obviously grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He is right that the solutions to knife crime are complex. As I learned between 2008 and 2012, there is no silver bullet that will drive the numbers down. However, our experience of those four years is that they can be driven down through a combination of things, including strong enforcement by the police. As he knows, we have given the police extra powers on stop-and-search—although it is controversial, we know that there are people with knives out there tonight, and our only viable tactic is to stop them, search them and remove the knives—while we create space to do long-term diversionary work with younger people, whether it is moving them away from gangs, crime and drugs, or identifying and dealing with their mental health issues early. There is a variety of things on the menu required to do it, and we will be working hard in the Home Office and across Government to put those measures in place.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like citizens up and down the country, my Cleethorpes constituents have genuine concerns about climate change. However, on the whole they support the balanced approach that the Government are taking, unlike those in XR. Many among the leadership of XR have political motives and seek to undermine the institutions that hold our society together. I urge the Minister to do all he can to identify these people and bring them to justice so that those who have genuine concerns within the XR movement can proceed in a more orderly fashion.
Kit Malthouse
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and he is quite right that the great silent majority, for whom climate change is very important, want to see it addressed, but in a measured, moderate way. He should be reassured that over the last week or so the police have made more than 600 arrests in relation to these protests. Obviously, those individuals will be going through the investigation and charging process to make sure they face, where appropriate, consequences for any crimes that may have been committed. I hope he will have seen, given the dwindling numbers of protesters over the past week or so, that that approach is having an effect.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Last year, this House agreed with, among others, Extinction Rebellion that we are now living in a climate emergency. Does the Minister accept that this Government have failed the many, many peaceful protesters and campaigners with their inaction and lack of ambition? Does he also accept that if he wants to enact real change, he should look to adopt the expertise and policies of the world’s most progressive and ambitious climate change leaders—the Scottish Government?
Kit Malthouse
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to refer to Costa Rica, which is, of course far ahead of Scotland in terms of its expertise and the use of technology to solve climate change. We bow to no one in our record on climate change. The previous two Prime Ministers and this one are absolutely committed to our target of net zero emissions by 2050. We are making enormous advances: not least the hon. Gentleman will have seen the reduction in the use of coal in our power industry, which is now virtually eliminated—the first country of any major country across the world to do that. As I said during my statement, we have a record of which we can be proud. He is right that there is much more to do, but that does not mean that we have done nothing and, indeed, that we have not made significant progress.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
As we rise to tackle the very real environmental issues we face, does the Minister agree that what we need is reason, vigour and practicality, not alarmism and revolution?
Kit Malthouse
Always the voice of reason and moderation, my hon. Friend is quite right and, as usual, consistent. He is a technologist and so am I. Science has solved all of humanity’s problems over the decades, and I am sure it will solve climate change just the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We do not have contact with Khalid Mahmood, so I call Robert Courts.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Clearly, the right to protest must be protected, but so must free speech and access to the free press. Will the Minister confirm that, when protest tips over into criminality and the police have to take action, they will be supported?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the button, and I completely agree with him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I understand that Khalid Mahmood has had to withdraw, so I call Steve McCabe.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I also want to offer my thanks to the police and the emergency services who dealt with the incident in Birmingham. The suspect in Birmingham appears to have been arrested in a house in multiple occupation in a residential part of my constituency. By happenstance, I had a useful discussion today with officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the dangers of an over-concentration of HMOs and non-commissioned supportive accommodation in particular areas. I want to express my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), for arranging that. Does the Minister agree that if this person was resident at such accommodation, it further raises safety and security concerns regarding that type of accommodation and suggests that the Home Office as well as MHCLG and the Department for Work and Pensions should be involved in any review?
Kit Malthouse
I obviously cannot comment on the particular circumstances of the investigation, but one of the things that we do know is critical in making sure that people do not become offenders—or, indeed, reoffend if they are released from prison—is that they have good, adequate and high-quality housing. I will have meetings with colleagues from MHCLG to discuss the role that they can play in our fight against crime.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am a journalist and an environmentalist. I used to be environment editor of The Observer and The Times. I am currently chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, and I have seen around the world that those countries that have a free press are far better at tackling environmental problems than those countries without a free press. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning Extinction Rebellion’s assault on the free press, and does he agree that such attacks on free speech will ultimately do more harm to the environmental cause than help it?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, the paradox, or even the tragedy, of the protests is that I understand that the edition of The Sun that was prevented from being distributed contained an op-ed from David Attenborough—no less—extolling the virtues of climate change action and urging Sun readers to do their bit on global warming. Ten years ago, nobody would have dreamt of that opinion appearing in that newspaper, and it shows how far the argument has been advanced by peaceful means. This protest runs the risk of setting the debate back rather than moving it forward.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement today. Does he agree with my South Derbyshire constituents that no one is above the law and that the illegal activities of Extinction Rebellion must mean that they face the full force of the law?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and her constituents. When a crime is committed, it should be investigated, whether it is under the guise of protest or otherwise.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The appalling series of attacks that we saw unfold in my constituency, right at the heart of our great city of Birmingham, were truly shocking. My thoughts and deepest sympathies continue to be with the man who was tragically killed, those who were injured and all their loved ones. Given the rising levels of knife crime in Birmingham, which now has the second highest numbers in the country behind London, what further urgent steps will the Minister take to get to grips with this epidemic and prevent yet more people from being killed and injured on our streets? Will he also stop expecting urban police forces such as West Midlands police to do more with less, and commit to funding them in a way that is commensurate with the risks that areas such as mine face?
Kit Malthouse
I obviously recognise the challenges, in urban areas of this country in particular, and I know that the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that we have provided many millions of pounds of surge funding to West Midlands police, alongside money for the violence reduction unit and, of course, the money to allow the uplift in the numbers of police officers. At some point this autumn, I will be visiting that force again to talk about its murder prevention strategy. I will then be able to take a better view about how prepared it is to help us in the fight against this kind of crime.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) [V]
On behalf of the people of Knowsley, may I express our solidarity with the people of Birmingham? In a free society, peaceful protest is important, as is a free press, but does the Minister agree that that does not extend the right to any group to prevent the people of Knowsley from going about their lawful business? Will he also confirm that the police have all the powers they need to prevent the unfortunate events that took place in Knowsley and elsewhere over the weekend from being repeated?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support, and he is right to say that, beyond the freedom of speech arguments, the workers in that plant would have been significantly affected and probably unable to leave work that evening. We are constantly reviewing the powers that the police have. Merseyside police managed to deal pretty effectively with that protest, having it cleared by 10.45 the next morning, but it is our duty constantly to ensure that we review police powers in the light of new and emerging tactics, and that is exactly what we will do.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
As the Minister has rightly said, our thanks go to the police for all the difficult work they do. The right to protest is a fundamental one, as is equal treatment before the law. Will he reassure me that, irrespective of the perceived worthiness of the cause, there will be equal treatment when protest occurs, and equal sanction where necessary?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously the decisions to charge, prosecute and hand out whatever sentence may be appropriate are a matter for those who are not under my control, happily—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts—but I know that they all have in mind the fact that confidence in the criminal justice system comes from exactly what my hon. Friend says, which is that everybody, whether he be aristocrat or commoner, is treated equally.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on the Front Bench rightly commended the people of Birmingham for going calmly about their business today. Unfortunately, that might be happening because such violent incidents are far too common on our streets now, and quite frankly, this is the shocking legacy of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) during her time as Home Secretary. Her slash-and-burn approach to the police led to the loss of 2,300 police officers in the west midlands, as well as equally valuable police community support officers and civilian support staff. The inevitable outcome has been surging crime and antisocial behaviour, terrorised neighbourhoods and the criminals ruling the streets after dark. So will the Minister now not just talk the talk about the number of police, PCSOs and support staff, but provide the cash from central Government as well, and not just for one or two years?
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman sought to ascribe blame elsewhere other than with the perpetrator of this awful crime. The basic premise of his attack is completely wrong. When I was deputy Mayor for policing in London dealing with a not dissimilar spike in knife crime, both in the capital and indeed across the country, it was at a time when police officer numbers were at an all-time high and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were spending money like water. The two are not connected. The causes of knife crime are complex and difficult. It behoves us all to take a serious non-political view and look at a 360° approach to tackling knife crime together.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
If we take at face value—I am being quite optimistic here—that the Minister does have a commitment to tackling climate change and this is not about making political points about XR, can I ask him, if he is serious about tackling climate change, when the Government will bring forward a vote on the climate and ecological emergency Bill?
Kit Malthouse
That is a matter, obviously, for the Government business managers. It is above my purview to be able to predict. The hon. Gentleman, to avoid any doubt, should know that I have long been an advocate of the hydrogen economy and was the chair of London Hydrogen Partnership for eight years. Indeed, I have been a proponent of a non-fossil fuel economy for the past 20 years or so. To me, science is the solution, rather than trying to batter us over the head with alternative views.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
It is true that various brands of Corbynism are a little less popular these days, but does my hon. Friend agree that fining a climate change denier £10,000 for an anti-lockdown protest sets a benchmark which should equally apply to those who break the law in pursuit of more fashionable causes?
Kit Malthouse
As the right hon. Gentleman may know, a number of fixed penalty fines have been handed out over the past few days for all manner of contraventions of the coronavirus regulations. No doubt some may be disputed, but we shall see in the end where the courts decide.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I think those of us who are concerned about the climate emergency should maybe thank the Minister, because with such a grandstanding statement he is actually giving Extinction Rebellion exactly the kind of publicity that they are looking for to draw attention to the climate emergency, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) said, the Scottish Government accept but this Government still do not appear to. Perhaps he might need to consider that if Extinction Rebellion had actual confidence in the steps the Government are taking to tackle climate change, they would not feel the need to take part in these protests?
Kit Malthouse
I think the hon. Gentleman is being a bit disingenuous. We know that because of some of the placards and posters at the demonstration: they seemed to be more about socialism and dismantling capitalism than about climate change. I understand that the SNP may want to do both of those things, but that has absolutely nothing to do with a greener planet.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
We have seen the deployment of police helicopters to monitor the protests in central London, which causes disruption to residents. Clearly, the police need to do their job, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should only be using helicopters if absolutely necessary?
Kit Malthouse
As the former London Assembly member for West Central, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend, and as a resident of Pimlico for 20-odd years, I totally understand the disruption that a constant buzzing helicopter can cause and what an impact it can have on people trying to go about their life peaceably. I know that the police are very aware of the impact a helicopter can have and only deploy it in circumstances where it is demanded. I hope that over the next few years drone technology will develop such that we are able to substitute that highly polluting and very noise aircraft for an alternative.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Five white billionaire men own the vast majority of the papers in our country. That is not free press; that is monopolistic press. It is laughable to suggest that one day of disruption causes a disruption to the fundamental principle of the free press. Protests are disrupting. If we are to support the idea of protest, we must not overblow the issue. Of course there are crimes and people will be punished for them, so why has the Minister decided to give a statement on XR and not on the far-right protesters who disrupted Dover this weekend? Does he only care when it is climate change protesters and not when it is racist thugs in our ports?
Kit Malthouse
I did come prepared to answer questions on Dover, and I am quite happy to do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes. Thankfully, that protest went off very quietly and there were not a huge number of protesters. Sadly, two police officers were injured or assaulted by protesters at the time, but it was dealt with very efficiently by Kent police. If the hon. Gentleman thinks there is a market for his views, he is perfectly free to start a newspaper, but I doubt he will sell many copies.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
On behalf of the residents and constituents of Meriden, I would like to associate myself with the comments made in the House, and I pay tribute to the emergency services and the victims of the attack. Over the weekend, many of us refrained from commenting because, quite simply, the facts had not been established. We did not know the motive of the attacks, nor did we know who had committed them. However, the police and crime commissioner of the West Midlands said in a press conference that these types of attacks were “inevitable” given covid-19 and people losing jobs, which was quite frankly shocking and, in my view, tantamount to a surrender. Does the Minister agree that the PCC should rescind those comments and apologise, and does he agree that these attacks are not inevitable and that, as elected officials, we all have a responsibility to do everything we can to stop these attacks, including backing our police officers and keeping our police stations open?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, I simply do not understand the comments of the police and crime commissioner. I had a call with him this morning, as hon. Members would expect, and these matters were not discussed. I have to say, however, that there is nothing inevitable about crime. A key plank of the approach of all Governments to crime has to be prevention. If we think smartly, work smartly and look at the complex causes of crime, we can and will prevent it in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister of State for his statement today. Can he confirm what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the right message goes out that if people are not peacefully protesting within the law, then there will be consequences and these will be faced by every member who takes part in these so-called protests? On occasion, these can turn into riots and can involve attacking and disrupting people, members of the police force and businesses, which will not be tolerated. Will the Minister of State clarify again that the right to protest does not mean a right to shut down business and cause loss of income or, indeed, worse—injury?
Kit Malthouse
The right to protest, like the right to free speech or to free assembly, is a gem to be treasured. It is a delicate vase, of which we must all take care, and those who abuse it, crack that vase for the rest of us and, as a result, do us all a disservice. The hon. Member is quite right that we have to take very seriously those who use the pretext of peaceful protest to prosecute criminal acts. I hope he will have seen, from the large number of arrests that have taken place over the last week or so, that certainly the police are taking that approach.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
May I, too, echo the comments on and tributes to the fantastic West Midlands police for all the work they did following the events this weekend? The point raised by our police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands was of crime being “inevitable”, but it is not inevitable for my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, who have seen their police stations closed and their community policing undermined by this police and crime commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend give a reassurance to my communities, some of the most vulnerable in the west midlands, that this Government have their back, and will he meet me to discuss the campaign to keep Wednesbury and Tipton police stations open?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the issues in his constituency. He is quite right, as I said earlier, that there is nothing inevitable about crime. If we accept an inevitability, we are basically abrogating our duty towards our fellow citizens to stretch every sinew in keeping them safe, and that is exactly what this Government will do.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
First, can I also echo the sentiments across the House in bringing my condolences to the families of all those affected by the horrific attacks in the past few days? I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will use this opportunity to reflect on the impact of a decade of Tory cuts to our police services across the UK. It is undeniable that forces across the country are already under extra pressure because of coronavirus. Can the Minister therefore please confirm today exactly what steps the Home Office is taking to prevent further tragedies taking place and unnecessary deaths from occurring on our streets?
Kit Malthouse
It will not surprise the hon. Lady to know that the Prime Minister, a former Mayor of London, and I, as his former deputy Mayor for policing and crime, take the issue of violent crime extremely seriously. That is why he set up the criminal justice taskforce, why he personally is leading the fight against crime in this country and why we have seen enormous changes in the crime landscape, not least the recruitment of 20,000 extra police officers, from which her area, like every area in the country, will benefit. It is worth saying and reiterating, as I said earlier, that the solutions to crime are complex and difficult and will require all of us to work together in that fight, and I hope she will join us in our fight against crime both in her constituency and elsewhere in the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to try to get everybody in, so can we be fairly brief in questions and in answers as well?
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in thanking Chief Superintendent Steve Graham and his team for their amazing work and bravery over the weekend in response to the terrible incident in Birmingham, especially in their fight to combat disinformation online and on social media? That work will not have been aided by the disgraceful comments of the police and crime commissioner, who tried to excuse this murderer before he had even been arrested.
Kit Malthouse
I know that West Midlands police and the chief inspector will be very grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. It is always heartening when Members of Parliament know their local senior police officers by name, because it means that they have met them, talked to them, understand their job and support them. I am very pleased that he does that as well. I hope that he and everybody in his part of the world will join together in fighting the crimes that his community face.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and the democratic right to peacefully protest is absolute but sits alongside a responsibility to respect the law. Parliamentary time is at a premium. On the radio yesterday, the Minister’s former colleague and ex-Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, stated that no new law laws were required if the police used the substantial powers they already have. So is this partly a question of police resources, and how do we ensure that the existing laws are used?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s unequivocal support for protest but also for making sure that we investigate crime. As I understand it—obviously after every incident like this there will be a review and lessons to be learned—some of the delay that arose was around the tactics that XR used in erecting scaffolding and using glue and locks to attach themselves to the road and to other items. The police have the capability to deal with those issues, but it is largely in places like London where we see most of the protests, so we will have to review whether we need this capability elsewhere, and if so we will have to make it happen.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
As a Brummie by birth, my thoughts go out to all the victims of this weekend’s appalling incident. But knife crime is not just a problem in our cities. In 2017, Ryan Passey was tragically killed at the hands of a knife bearer after an altercation in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be tougher action against those carrying knives and more understanding as to why people feel compelled to carry one in the first place?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Having met far too many victims of knife crime myself, I know she is absolutely right. It behoves us all—we all have a duty—to think carefully about what more we can do to address this terrible phenomenon. I do not understand what possesses somebody to take a knife out at night, not least because we know that if someone carries a knife they are actually more likely to be stabbed, not less, even if they are carrying it for self-defence. What we need to get to is a situation where people know that our public space is well guarded and is a lawful public space, and therefore feel safe enough that they do not have to carry a knife, even for self-defence.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Does the Minister understand the genuine concerns about any plans to reclassify Extinction Rebellion as a criminal group and the implications that this may have for peaceful protest, especially given that last year the Prime Minister’s own father addressed an Extinction Rebellion rally and said that he backed their methods?
Kit Malthouse
The classification or otherwise of any group depends on their conduct. Perhaps Extinction Rebellion, in its wider sense, needs to think about the group within its number that is employing these extreme tactics and whether that is appropriate for members of the organisation, but that is a matter for it. As I say, we constantly keep all these things under review, and it is a reflection of the conduct of individuals in society as to how they are classified.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
West Midlands police did a remarkable job under difficult circumstances this weekend. I would like to say a special thank you to the emergency services involved, and my condolences go to the families of the victims. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, assuming that the suspect is convicted, this man will have the full weight of the law brought against him for these horrendous crimes? The people of Birmingham, like those in neighbouring West Bromwich East, demand that. We want everyone to know that the west midlands is a fantastic place to live and work.
Kit Malthouse
Notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s obvious concern for justice to be served for those victims, I obviously cannot comment on the case or, indeed, what the person who I understand is in custody is being held in custody in connection with. However, I know that those people who are involved in the investigation and then prosecution and conviction of whoever is identified as the perpetrator of this crime will certainly have the sentiments that she expressed in the front of their minds.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Direct action is a proud part of our history and democracy. Through it, the Chartists and suffragettes helped secure the right to vote and trade unions won the eight-hour working day and paid holidays, and it played a key part in securing legislation for gay rights and for women’s and racial equality. If pursued, would not the Home Secretary’s suggestion of defining Extinction Rebellion as a criminal gang be a betrayal of our proud tradition of civil liberties?
Kit Malthouse
Direct action is not the same thing as a crime. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are certain crimes that he wishes to ignore, then I am afraid the Opposition are in a very difficult place. I am the Minister for policing and crime, and when, under our current law as approved through this House, somebody commits a crime, I have no choice other than to condemn it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The people of Ashfield see no benefit in protesters gluing their ears to the pavement, spraying red dye on our monuments or camping out in trees on Parliament Square. Extinction Rebellion is now public nuisance No. 1 because of the disruption it causes, as well as the massive cost to our emergency services when, frankly, they have better things to do. Does my hon. Friend agree that this group should be classified as a crime group and feel the full weight of the law if it continues to disrupt members of the public going about their daily business?
Kit Malthouse
I know that my hon. Friend is the genuine voice of his constituents, and he will have received many emails from them on this issue. As I said earlier, the classification of any particular group depends on its conduct in society. Obviously, when a crime is committed, that should be investigated and prosecuted, and punished accordingly.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
According to today’s Times, the Prime Minister is considering new powers to prevent newspaper presses from being blockaded, but the Foreign Secretary says that adequate enforcement powers exist already. I wonder whether the Minister can say which he believes is right—or is this a case, as usual, of the Government’s left hand not knowing what their right hand is doing?
Kit Malthouse
Even before the events of this weekend, we were keeping the rules and regulations, the law and police powers around protest under constant review. As the hon. Lady will know, the nature of protest has changed quite significantly over the last 15 or 20 years, so she would expect that to happen, and it seems like a perfectly natural thing for us to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just to re-emphasise, we need to move through the remaining questioners so that we can get on to the next business.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister will know that there is no greater advocate for the environment or low carbon than me—I worked in the sector for many years—but does he not agree that the actions of Extinction Rebellion, whether vandalism, blockading or even threatening to have MPs shot in the head, as its founder said, undermine the good cause? Does he agree that we need to root out extremists, be they far left, far right or eco-extremists?
Kit Malthouse
Absolutely right. My hon. Friend speaks the truth. The sad effect of the events this weekend is that they have probably turned more people off the cause then they have encouraged to join it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The law has to apply to everyone equally, whether they are protesting about the environment or not, but designating Extinction Rebellion as an organised crime group is surely a step too far. What will the consequences be for genuine people who follow the protests of Extinction Rebellion and want to get involved in protesting against climate change—could they then be prosecuted under some new law for being involved in organised crime?
Kit Malthouse
As I have said repeatedly, the classification of any organisation depends on its conduct in society. There is a question for the wider membership of Extinction Rebellion about whether they are happy with the tactics of this small group and think it has been to the benefit or the detriment of their cause that these events took place over the weekend.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
With fewer hard-working commuters to disrupt, Extinction Rebellion is trying to attack the freedom of the press by stopping newspapers being printed and delivered. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House and the country that the police have the resources and the support they need to fully enforce the law and ensure that everyone abides by the same rules?
Kit Malthouse
I can reassure my hon. Friend that police forces within the area and surrounding it were able to deploy significant assets to both incidents in fast time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In an ideal world, Extinction Rebellion would not feel the need to protest. The Minister said in his statement that the UK Government are doing a lot of good work with regard to climate change. They might be doing some good work, but it is not enough. The reality is that the UK Government are not on track to meet their fourth and fifth legally binding carbon budgets, which are not even aligned to net zero. Does he agree that one simple measure the Government could take, which would make an important statement, is to re-establish a stand-alone Department for Energy and Climate Change?
Kit Malthouse
Once again, the hon. Gentleman asks a question that is outside my purview. Just to reassure nationalist colleagues, this Government have no problem with being urged to go further and faster, to achieve more and to aim higher. What we have a problem with is people who commit a crime in order to do so.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Thames Valley police for the excellent work they have done over the summer? We have had a summer of discontent, protests and, some would say, lawlessness. Does he agree that the public are looking to the police to restore law and order on our streets? I hope that we will give them full law and order with a crackdown, starting with Extinction Rebellion for its campaign against free speech, democratic values and the rule of law.
Kit Malthouse
I can reassure my hon. Friend that, actually, our streets have been very orderly—often more orderly than usual—during the pandemic lockdown. Indeed, crime has been significantly lower than we would have expected, which is great news, notwithstanding the amplified impact of these protests. I am more than happy to congratulate Thames Valley police, and I will be able to do so tomorrow morning in person, because I am visiting them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Our planet is burning, flooding and melting, meaning that people are starving, migrating, fighting and dying. Should the Government not respond to this climate crisis by urgently bringing forward emergency legislation to mitigate climate crime, rather than plotting to criminalise peaceful and—currently—lawful environmental protectors?
Kit Malthouse
We are only criminalising people who commit criminal acts. That is the point, and we shall see where those charges eventually land. As I said, the Government have done an enormous amount on climate change, and while I do not have a problem with being urged to go further and faster, ignoring the progress we have made does no one any service.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Non-violent civil disobedience is a common practice tool used by protest groups throughout history to demand change. Branding them as criminals is not the right way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) reminded us earlier that the Prime Minister’s own father spoke at a protest organised by Extinction Rebellion. Does the Home Office really wish to criminalise him and others like him?
Kit Malthouse
As I have pointed out endlessly in the last hour and a half, I completely agree that non-violent civil disobedience is perfectly legitimate—indeed, it is a fundamental right of mine as a citizen of this country—but that is not the same as committing a crime or attempting to curtail the rights of others.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
My thoughts and condolences are with the victims of the attack in Birmingham. Yesterday a 13-year-old boy was threatened with a knife on Colchester Road in Ipswich and today, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a tragic attack in Kesgrave, which is just outside Ipswich. Will he pledge to make sure that Suffolk constabulary has the resources it needs to tackle crime and also that those caught in possession of a bladed weapon fear the consequences? My fear right now is that they do not.
Kit Malthouse
As my hon. Friend knows, Suffolk will receive an uplift of police officers over the next few years, and I know it is making good progress on recruitment so far. Although he is right that those who perpetrate knife crime need to fear the consequences, the critical deterrent factor in crime is the perception of the likelihood of being caught. The recruitment of more police officers and the powers that we give them will help with that in Suffolk, as it will elsewhere.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I would like to offer my condolences to the families of those injured and killed this weekend in Birmingham. Can the Minister confirm that lessons will be learned from this tragic event? Many police forces have lost thousands of staff and police officers in the past 10 years. How can he reassure the people of Birmingham and across the UK that such tragedies can be prevented in future with such job losses?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, during my time at City Hall, when police officer numbers were much higher, we faced the same challenge with knife crime, but managed to drive it down, making significant reductions. We hope that we can do the same thing across the whole country, including in the west midlands, but we need support and help from people such as the hon. Lady and others to do so.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
How many more ambulances need to be stopped by protesters before the police start arresting people who create illegal roadblocks?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is quite right that that is the unfortunate effect of some of those protests. As I said earlier, the Metropolitan police has made over 600 arrests now, with dozens made over the weekend. Hopefully that is having an impact on the numbers, but we all want XR to think about the practical consequences of their protests, in terms of not just what we in this House think, but the impact on their fellow citizens.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Policing and police resourcing is one part of the picture of reducing knife crime. Another part, of course, is preventive work. Youth services in England have seen a cut of £1 billion, or 73%, since 2010. Youth work can provide a really good preventive strategy when it comes to knife crime. What discussions is the Minister having with his colleagues to reverse the cuts to youth services?
Kit Malthouse
We are obviously going into a spending round and giving consideration, through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my Department and the Ministry of Justice, to what funding and capability we can point towards diverting young people away from crime. The hon. Lady will know that, happily, I am also in the middle of a process of engaging with the violence reduction units that we have funded across the country, to learn from them and understand what is working, so that we can promulgate that across the rest of the country.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I have spoken many times in this House about the importance of regulating the press and how important I believe climate change is. People like me are so put off by what the XR people are doing. How do we communicate to them that they are really their own worst enemy?
Kit Malthouse
I have no doubt that they will be watching this session with interest. Notwithstanding one or two voices in support, the vast majority of Members have been against. No doubt as the individuals involved go back and sense the feeling from their own communities, families and acquaintances, they will see that this was a step too far.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Far-right anti-migrant activists brought the port of Dover to a halt, and 10 were arrested for racially aggravated public disorder, violent disorder and the assault of an emergency worker. Why is there not a Home Office statement on, condemnation of, and focus on that?
Kit Malthouse
As I have said, I came prepared to answer questions on that protest. It was not deemed to be of a scale necessary to make a statement about, particularly given the impact of the events in Birmingham, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right in his assessment. I do condemn those protesters, in particular those who assaulted police officers.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I add my condolences to the victims of the horrendous events that took place in Birmingham early on Sunday morning, when the police and emergency services were clearly faced with a really challenging situation. From reading accounts in the media of what happened at that time, it seems that the perpetrator was at large an hour and a half after committing the first crime and continuing to commit further crimes. I just wondered whether that was a matter of concern to the Minister.
Kit Malthouse
I wish I could comment on the circumstances of the case and the individual. Of course, I have been briefed by the chief constable. No doubt, in time, as this matter is brought before the courts, all will become apparent. Whatever happens, we will try to learn lessons from what happened on Saturday night.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Whatever we think about Extinction Rebellion’s tactics, be they right or wrong, its actions were peaceful, and such civil disobedience methods have been used throughout history, so any branding of the activists as criminals is certainly not acceptable. Does not the Minister agree that two wrongs do not make a right?
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend in his comments earlier that a consequence of a protest turning to criminality has a cost in resources, time and priorities for our brave police officers. Will he therefore look at a legislative route that might enable us to reclaim policing costs from individuals and campaign groups when protest turns to criminality in their name?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point to which I will give due attention as we go into the spending round.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the increased resources going into policing in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. We here all condemn the unacceptable behaviour we have seen with recent protests. It is totally unacceptable to see people resorting to violence and to also see these larger gatherings when such gatherings are banned. Will my hon. Friend join me in ensuring that we send a strong message to those organising these events that they will be fined, and that action is being taken to ensure that such events will not be allowed to take place in future?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, a number of fines were handed out over the weekend, and my hon. Friend has given exactly the strong message he is looking for
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
As a former journalist, I was appalled at the chilling attempts to quash the free press by extremists at the weekend. Day in, day out, reporters risk their lives around the world in their determination to seek and expose the truth, which is printed on newspapers at the very print works that XR blockaded. Does my hon. Friend agree that no protest group has the right to override those committed journalists and try to dictate its version of the truth?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is exactly right. If anything, the protest highlighted—certainly to me and to many millions of our fellow citizens—the miracle that is a newspaper. Information is brought to us from across the globe and printed, dropping through the letterbox day after day without let or hindrance. If anything, the protest highlighted the value of that resource.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is with regret that, since Extinction Rebellion’s inception, we have witnessed it adopt increasingly radical measures, which masquerade upon an environmentalist platform. In truth, it is a considered ruse to gain support for its Marxist agenda, which attacks British values predicated on freedom and pluralism. Blocking ambulances and seeking to constrain press freedom are but two examples from a plethora of behaviours that demonstrate its devious agenda.
Her Majesty’s Government were elected with a mighty mandate from the British people to restore their ancient rights and freedoms, whether threatened from Brussels or from the barricade. The fine people of my constituency of Wakefield expect us to deliver on that. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to neutralise XR’s disruptive and dangerous tactics?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s stentorian support. He is quite right that people want to see a sense of order in this country, and that is exactly what we will put in place and what we are beavering away to make happen across the country—in his constituency and elsewhere.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
In my constituency, I often meet climate activists—people from the Green party. Two of them have stood against me in previous elections and I can honestly say that they are thoroughly decent, engaging and polite, lobbying me for things to be done. That is in stark contrast to what we are seeing at the moment. The idea that we can say that “Well, they were only attacking five billionaire press barons” is simply wrong. Small community shops have been at the heart of our communities during the covid crisis and they took a real hit this weekend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to engage on this subject is to do what the people I am honoured to call my constituents do to try to tackle climate issues, rather than putting hard-working businesspeople out of work?
Kit Malthouse
As usual, my right hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a way of engaging and influencing us as Members of Parliament that works—the one that he rightly points out—and like him, I have never refused to meet a green group in my constituency. If anything, I meet them with pleasure because our views often coincide, but fundamentally, as he knows, because he has been politically active for a long time, the way to effect change is through hard work. It means people leafletting, standing in an election, fighting their corner, getting elected to this place by winning an election and then putting their agenda in place. That is what he and I have done for the last two or three decades and that is the right and proper way in a democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We now have a three-minute suspension.
Fire Safety Bill
Monday 7th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
20:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (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—Accreditation of fire risk assessors—
‘The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require fire risk assessors for any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to be accredited.’
This new clause would require fire risk assessors to be accredited.
New clause 3—Inspectors: prioritisation—
‘In discharging their duties under article 27 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (powers of inspectors) in relation to any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the premises which they consider to be at most risk.’
This new clause would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings.
New clause 4—Meaning of responsible person—
‘In article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (“meaning of responsible person”), at the end of paragraph (b)(ii) insert—
“(2) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, a leaseholder shall not be considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.”’
This new clause aims to clarify the definition of ‘responsible person’ to ensure leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
New clause 5—Waking watch—
‘The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to specify when a waking watch must be in place for any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises and which has been found to have fire safety failings.’
This new clause would require the UK Government (for England) and the Welsh Government (for Wales) to specify when a waking watch must be in place for buildings with fire safety failures.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1C) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the things to which this order applies includes electrical appliances.
(1D) The reference to electrical appliances means any appliances specified by Order made by the relevant authority.
(1E) Schedule 1 of the Fire Safety Act 2020 shall apply to paragraphs (1C) and (1D).’
This amendment would clarify that the Fire Safety Order applies to electrical appliances.
New schedule 1—
‘1 The relevant authority must, no later than 12 months after the date on which this Act is passed, make regulations specifying the electrical appliances covered by paragraph (1D) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
2 The relevant authority must, no later than 12 months after the date on which this Act is passed, make regulations to amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (“the Order”) as follows—
(a) to require the responsible person for premises to which the Order applies to—
(i) carry out electrical safety checks of such type as may be prescribed by the Order at such frequency as may be so prescribed (being no less frequently than every 5 years) at each set of domestic premises, regardless of whether the occupier is a tenant of the responsible person;
(ii) keep records of the checks for such period as may be prescribed by the Order and make them available upon request to such persons as may be so prescribed;
(iii) keep a register of such kinds of electrical appliances as may be prescribed by the Order that are kept in each set of domestic premises, regardless of whether the occupier is a tenant of the responsible person;
(iv) check whether those electrical appliances are the subject of a recall notice under paragraph 12 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016.
(b) to require occupiers of such premises to—
(i) provide access to premises and allow action to remedy any failure to meet safety standards identified in a safety check carried out in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(i);
(ii) provide the relevant responsible person with information about electrical appliances prescribed in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(iii) and kept in the premises;
(iii) comply with any reasonable requirement made by the responsible person in relation to electrical appliances which the responsible person has reason to believe are the subject of a recall notice under paragraph 12 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016.
3 Regulations made under paragraph 2 may—
(a) confer a power to enter premises on such persons as may be prescribed in the Order for such purposes connected with the requirements imposed under the regulations as may be so prescribed.
(b) create offences;
(c) amend the definition of “responsible person” in article 6 of the Order;
(d) make such consequential, supplementary or incidental provision by way of amendments to the Order as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
4 Regulations made under paragraph 2 must provide that any power to enter domestic premises is not to be exercisable unless—
(a) at a reasonable time and with the consent of the occupier of the premises; or
(b) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.”
5 In this schedule the term “relevant authority” has the same meaning as in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.’
This new schedule would require the Government to make regulations specifying the electrical appliances to which the Fire Safety Order applies. It would also require the Government to amend the Order to impose additional duties on the responsible person and on occupiers. It is consequential on Amendment 1.
Sarah Jones
Let me begin, as I have at every stage of this Bill, by saying that we on the Opposition Benches support the Bill. The Minister knows that. We are keen to be as supportive as possible, but let me reiterate the point that I have also made at every stage, which is that this Bill is a shamefully inadequate response to the multiple problems for fire safety, which were so tragically brought to the fore when 72 lives were lost in the Grenfell Tower fire. The Bill—all three clauses of it—goes nowhere near far enough to prevent a tragedy like Grenfell from happening again.
The Government said that the introduction of the Fire Safety Bill would take them a step further in delivering the inquiry’s recommendations and recently cited the Bill as one of their key priorities in response to a deeply frustrated letter from Grenfell survivors. Yet the Bill does not even include provisions for any of the measures called for by the first phase of the inquiry.
The Grenfell community were failed by a system that did not listen to them. We must never forget that failure. I pay tribute to Grenfell United, the families and the whole community for continuing to tirelessly fight for justice. They should not have had to fight so hard, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are now being failed by a system that does not listen to them—those stuck in buildings with flammable cladding, those using their income to fund waking watch and other safety measures, and those who cannot buy or sell their flats because the mortgage market has been ground to a halt by confusion and lack of Government leadership.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend starts absolutely with the crux of the matter. She will be aware that, in my own constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, we have thousands of residents in apartment blocks who are affected by these issues. The failure of companies such as Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Wimpey to hold to their responsibilities for fire safety and other building defects is a huge problem. Does she agree that they need to take responsibility for mistakes that they may have made in construction?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The system as a whole is fundamentally broken, and it is the developers as well as the Government who need to look to their own actions and correct them.
The Government have made many promises to bring justice to the survivors and their families, to change building and fire safety regulations and to do this quickly, but the Government are yet to make their promises a reality. At every stage, we have had to drag them into action. During the passage of this Bill, we have sought constructively to improve it, so that it goes further as a piece of primary legislation towards improving fire safety.
New clause 1 would do what the Government say must come later. It would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the recommendations—the key recommendations—from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry in full and without delay. This new clause, which we are moving tonight, would fulfil that promise. In what is a very complex world of building and fire safety, the new clause is relatively simple. It seeks to do four things: the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises would share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; they would complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; they would complete regular inspections of lifts; and they would share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. These measures are straightforward and are supported by key stakeholders. Frankly, it is pretty extraordinary that they are not already enshrined in law.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way at this point. She is making a very powerful case. I will be supporting new clause 1, as it is worthy of support. Will she put some pressure on her Labour colleagues in the Welsh Government in Cardiff to bring forward similar proposals for consideration by the Senedd in Cardiff before the elections in May?
Sarah Jones
The Welsh Government have a proud record on fire safety, and I point the hon. Gentleman in the direction of the many actions that have been taken. In this case today, we are looking at the actions of the Government and their failure to act since the Grenfell Tower fire three years ago.
Time and again in Committee, the Minister supported what we were saying in principle but told us that we must wait for a consultation to finish, a taskforce to report, or the experts to tell us what to do. That is not good enough. We have seen with covid what can be done with political will: hospitals built in days, and whole systems restructured to respond where there is a need. If the political will was there, the Government would support this new clause and we could take one step in the direction of keeping the promises that we all made in those days and weeks after the Grenfell fire. The Government have given no timetable for when they will deliver the inquiry’s recommendations through secondary legislation. The Government have continuously pushed back on their promises while thousands of people across the country are stuck still in unsafe flats.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know, and the Minister will recognise, that there are thousands of leaseholders living in flats—I support all steps being taken to improve fire safety—where, as each day passes, more bills are coming in for increased insurance and waking watches. They live in dread of the final bill for the cost of replacing the cladding, which will be completely unaffordable. It is not fair to our constituents to make them live with this nightmare that they did not cause, and I hope she will continue to urge the Government to play their part, because only the Government can solve this.
Sarah Jones
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: only the Government can fix this problem. The lack of action and the lack of clarity about which buildings are safe, apart from anything else, and about what needs to be done has led to huge disruption for thousands of people, huge cost, mental health issues, weddings put off, jobs and opportunities not being able to be taken and all manner of problems that the Government need to fix.
The Government have constantly pushed back on their promises, while many people are still in unsafe flats. The fire safety measures recommended by phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry are urgently needed. Why would we wait for secondary legislation at an undetermined point in the future to ensure that building owners and managers share information about the design of external walls with their local fire services? Why would we delay the requirement to have inspections of individual flat doors and lifts? Why would we wait to make building owners or managers share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents?
In Committee, the Minister responding—the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—said that the Government intend to legislate further, but we need more than vague commitments about secondary legislation. At the very least, we need a clear timetable from Government that sets out when further changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 will be delivered.
The fire safety order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but it includes no legal requirement for those conducting the assessment to have any form of training or accreditation. I could call myself a fire risk assessor, set myself up with a logo and be responsible for one of the most important safety measures we have. No other sector would accept that. No one would accept electricians with no qualifications or gas engineers making it up as they go along. It is absurd. Any one of us could carry out fire risk assessments on schools, hospitals or care homes with no test or accreditation needed. The lack of training and accreditation in such an important area is completely unacceptable.
The Bill’s changes to the fire safety order clarify the inclusion of external wall systems such as cladding and insulation, which makes the competence of fire risk assessors even more important, as they will need to understand the more complex elements and materials found in cladding systems. That hugely important issue has been raised by Members from all parts of the House on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Government should be using the Bill to legislate for higher standards and greater public accountability in fire inspections. New clause 2, tabled by the Opposition, would bring into force an accreditation system for fire risk assessors, rather than waiting for more secondary legislation. In Committee, the Minister responding referred to the “industry-led competency steering group” in relation to fire risk assessors. I hope that the Minister today can provide an update on when the Government plan to bring forward changes to address the issue of unqualified fire risk assessors.
Turning to new clause 3, we have talked to many experts and stakeholders who have significant concerns, which the Minister will be aware of, about how the Bill will be implemented. The Minister responding in Committee referred to the building risk review programme, which looks
“to ensure that local resources are targeted at those buildings most at risk.”––[Official Report, Fire Safety Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 62.]
We would like to see a similar provision in the Bill. New clause 3 would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings. Local fire and rescue services know their areas and the buildings where there is greatest risk. Let them decide what to prioritise first. They know better than Whitehall.
Many Members from all parts of the House have been contacted by desperate leaseholders who have been left to foot the bill for urgent fire safety works, despite not being the building owner. That is a huge challenge, as we have already discussed. The definition of the responsible person in this legislation needs to be made clear.
The Fire Safety Bill is intended to be a foundational Bill. Its purpose is to provide clarity on what is covered under the fire safety order, which will inform other related and secondary legislation. New clause 4 would be an important example of that kind of clarification. Its purpose is to clarify the definition of “responsible person” to ensure that a leaseholder is not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part-owner of the freehold. The draft Building Safety Bill places various requirements on the responsible person, and refers to the fire safety order for the definition. It is vital that the fire safety order makes it clear that there is no ambiguity around the definition of “responsible person”; otherwise, there is a risk of confusion and misalignment between the two pieces of legislation, and a danger that the responsible person might seek to use that ambiguity to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill.
The definition of the responsible person has been raised by many Members from across the House at each stage of the Bill’s progress. Without clear definitions, there will be new questions of interpretation, and we will not achieve what we are setting out to achieve. The Opposition do not understand why that is controversial. Perhaps the Minister could help by explaining why he is comfortable leaving such dangerous ambiguity.
New clause 5 refers to another important issue, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) raised. Struggling leaseholders across the country have been forced to pay extortionate fees for interim fire safety measures—most commonly, waking watch—while progress on remediation work has been too slow. New clause 5 aims to clarify when waking watch should and should not be in place. The Government still have not published the findings of their audit of external wall systems of high-rise buildings, and are therefore unable to say how many buildings are covered in dangerous non-ACM cladding. However, we know from their latest figures on aluminium composite material cladding that more than 80% of private sector residential buildings, and nearly half of social sector residential buildings, wrapped in Grenfell-style ACM cladding have not had it removed and replaced. The Government deadlines of 2019 for social sector blocks to be made safe, and June 2020 for private sector blocks, were both missed. Progress has been painfully slow, and the coronavirus pandemic has hindered it even more. The impact on residents is terrible. Tens of thousands of people have been locked down in unsafe buildings for months on end.
The National Fire Chiefs Council says that waking watch should be a temporary measure, but some blocks have been paying for it for three years, which has cost residents thousands of pounds and ruined lives. Given that the safety status of many buildings across the country remains uncertain and the timelines for cladding removal keep getting extended, clarity on when and for how long waking watch should be used would bring much-needed consistency on how the measure should be applied.
I will speak very briefly about amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who has persistently campaigned on fire safety for many years. I pay tribute to him and Jim Fitzpatrick, who is no longer in this House, for their campaigning work and for writing to Ministers time after time, including only weeks before the Grenfell fire, to implore them to act on fire safety. The issue of electrical safety, which amendment 1 raises, is hugely important, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House. The additional requirements on the fire and rescue service to provide a higher level of inspection and enforcement on the communal parts of buildings with two or more domestic premises, which this Bill introduces, should be accompanied by a rigorous approach to safety checks of electric appliances inside the premises. It is vital to ensure that the risk of faulty electrical appliances in multiply occupied residential buildings is minimised.
Last month, I wrote to the Minister seeking urgent action on the rising number of fires caused by faulty appliances in high-rise blocks. The number of electrical fires caused by faulty appliances has risen in England. Based on analysis of Government figures by Electrical Safety First, The Times has reported a rise in the number of electrical fires caused by faulty tumble dryers and fridges. The number of accidental electrical fires in tower blocks has risen in each of the past three years. If these measures cannot be included in the Bill, we will scrutinise any proposals that the Government bring forward to ensure the best possible standards of electrical safety. Will they set out a timetable to deliver that?
In conclusion, there are many issues around improving fire safety that we would have liked to see included in the Bill. However, due to its limited scope, many will have to be addressed through the draft Building Safety Bill and secondary legislation. The amendments we have tabled are straightforward; most of them are on issues that the Government have stated their intention to address but have not shown the political will to move faster on. For those living in unsafe buildings, the risk of fire will not wait for the Government to choose an appropriate date for the Bill’s commencement. After Grenfell, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said that her Government will do “whatever it takes” to keep our people safe. Three years on, we urge the Government to honour the commitment to keep people safe, and to act as quickly as they can to do that.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 1, and I welcome, to a greater extent, the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). I thank her for her generous remarks about myself, of which I am not worthy; I have simply been the mouthpiece for others who have been doing the work behind the scenes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have known one another for a very long time; in fact, when I was an MP for another place, he and his dear wife were there knocking on doors for me, yet now I have tabled an amendment which is not exactly what he wants. I have something to say to him, to which he must not take offence: I am a loyal Conservative through and through, but there comes a point when that loyalty begins to wane a bit. I say to my hon. Friends on the Government Benches that the Government are in choppy waters at the moment. I do not want to tip the boat over, but I am beginning to tire of the responses we have been getting from the Front Bench, and I will come to that in a moment.
I am delighted to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who was once a fire Minister—I hope he is not here to pick holes in my argument; he had better not—and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who has far more expertise in electrical matters than I could ever hope to have, and also of course the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has campaigned on this issue for many years. That shows that there is broad all-party parliamentary support on this matter, and it is not party political.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Robert Neill
I assure my right hon. Friend that I very much sympathise with the points he was making, and I am certainly not here to pick holes. As a fellow West Ham supporter, I would never dream of picking holes in my right hon. Friend’s arguments, and I hope that the Minister, as another West Ham supporter—like Jim Fitzpatrick—would not either. Perhaps we can get some unanimity as to the objective, even if we need a bit of clarity on the way forward; does my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) agree that that is what we need from this debate?
Sir David Amess
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, but the three of us have got one or two worries about West Ham at the moment because we lost 5-3 in the friendly; we hope to do a little better when the serious matches start.
Let me say at the outset that, as I said on Second Reading to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I very much support this Bill, and the hon. Member for Croydon Central said that as well. It is, understandably, short and is clear in its purpose of making provision about the application of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, and it also confers power to amend the order in future for the purposes of changing the premises to which it applies. That being noted, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I believe that if the Government were minded to accept my amendments, that would improve the Bill even further. And what is wrong with that—that is something that we should embrace?
However, I do accept that when my right hon. Friend comes to reply, he will draw out of his folder a bit of paper telling him to resist the amendments, and to do so because they are “not in order”, or because “It’s the wrong Department” or “It’s the wrong time.” It is never the right time, however, and I say to my right hon. Friend that we owe it to the people who died in Grenfell, and their relatives and friends, to act as quickly as possible. And I say to those on the Treasury Bench that there is more than enough time to legislate; my goodness, we packed up on Thursday at 1.35 pm. I could have filled the Chamber’s time with endless issues. I say to my right hon. Friend that we should find time in the legislative programme for this.
While taking account of phase 1 findings from the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, the Bill requires owners and managers of multi-occupancy residential buildings in England and Wales to reduce the risk of fire by removing unsafe materials on the external walls of buildings and the individual flat entrance doors. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central has said, the responsible person or duty holder for a multi-occupied residential building must manage risk for the structure, external walls, cladding, balconies and windows, but this legislation should also consider the source of fires in the first place. Surely, for goodness’ sake, that is what this legislation should be all about. The purpose of my amendments is to be proactive, and to help prevent fires caused by electrical sources of ignition and ensure that consideration of the safety of electrical appliances is given in this Bill, as they are a key cause of fires in people’s homes.
These amendments further build on the Government’s new regulation for the private rented sector, The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, which will give electrical safety checks every five years to tenants in the private rented sector—I certainly welcome that. I commend the Government on introducing those regulations, which had cross-party support, but I believe this Bill can be amended further to include electrical checks for all people in buildings of multiple occupancy. I know that the Minister will tell us at the end why it cannot.
I wish to thank the wonderful charity Electrical Safety First, which has worked with me, as chairman of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue, on its long-standing campaigning to prevent fires caused by electricity in domestic homes. I agree with ESF’s assessment that this Bill should do something more to prevent fires from occurring in the first place, so my amendments seek a solution that will strengthen the protection that people living in high-rise residential buildings require. I accept that the Government are giving some consideration of electrical appliance safety through their Draft Building Safety Bill, but my amendments are designed to ensure that electrical appliances are registered with the responsible person for high-rise domestic dwellings and to introduce mandatory checks for all residents, whatever the tenure of their home. It is truly shocking that electricity causes more than 14,000 fires a year, which is almost half of all accidental house fires. In England, 53% of dwelling fires are caused by an electrical source of ignition, but what does this House do about it? It does nothing, and there is time now to do something. Let us, in this unusual Parliament, where we are trying to fight the invisible enemy, do some good—my amendment would do that.
There are about 4,000 tower blocks in the United Kingdom, and the English housing survey estimates that they contain more than 480,000 individual flats in England alone—that is a huge number. Unless every unit in a high-rise building is subject to the same safety regime, everyone in the building can be placed at risk from one single flat—my goodness, how we found that out not so very long ago. Therefore any measure to improve electrical safety in multi-occupied buildings can help to protect more than 1 million people. New analysis of Government data reveals that nearly a quarter of the accidental electrical fires that occurred in high-rise buildings in the past five years in England were the result of faulty appliances, leads and fuel supplies, which can include electrical wiring in a property. My amendments would see a responsible person record the presence of white goods, in order to minimise the risks that faulty goods can pose in densely populated buildings—I know that that is a challenge, and I say to my right hon. Friend that I accept the practicalities about it. Keeping a record of the appliances in use would mean that faulty recalled appliances could be removed or repaired—if only that had happened with the Whirlpool appliances. Mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure, are also included in the amendment. Current regulations mean that privately rented flats are required to have electrical safety checks, but other tenures are not, which has created what I would describe as a tenure lottery of buildings, which often include owner-occupier, privately rented and social housing property.
The tasks to check tenants’ electrical safety would be undertaken by competent, registered electricians, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) will have something to say about that. I am aware of the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union, who have written to me. I fully accept that their members have more than enough to do without bearing the responsibility for this work, and there is absolutely no intention in the amendments that fire officers would actually undertake it. Let me provide that assurance, and I would be very happy to talk to the Fire Brigades Union about the situation.
More worryingly, analysis shows that over the past three years, accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings have risen consistently year on year, and it is absolutely ridiculous that that is happening. High-profile tower block fires have been previously linked to electrical sources, including Lakanal House, where an electrical fault with a television claimed the lives of six people, and Shepherd’s Court of course where, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith has told us in detail on other occasions, a faulty tumble dryer led to extensive damage to an 18-storey building. While other factors accelerated that fire, it must be highlighted that the primary cause of the Grenfell Tower fire was an electrical source of ignition, as subsequently confirmed by the Grenfell inquiry—that source is in phase one documentation.
It is important to note that fires are not all caused by appliances themselves, but by misuse of them. That is why, despite my amendments, education is obviously very important. Every year, there is a week of educational awareness raising with the public on the proper use of electricity and appliances through the “Fire Kills” campaign. Recent tragic events have demonstrated the fatal risks that electrical accidents and incidents pose to people in their own homes, particularly in high-density housing such as tower blocks. Electrical Safety First has worked to ensure that tenants living in the private rented sector are protected by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks in their properties, which was recently brought into law. Such measures are crucial in bringing down the number of electrical accidents and incidents, and I believe that now is the time to include individual dwellings in tower blocks in that regime, regardless of their tenure.
I appreciate that this is a short Bill that will amend the Fire Safety Order 2005, which focuses on non-domestic measures, but it will also amend the order in domestic homes. That means that homes in high-rise blocks will be affected by the proposed legislation, and this offers an excellent and straightforward opportunity to ensure that all who live in such buildings are brought under the same safety regime. Given this, I believe that the newly created role of the responsible person for each high building should include the task of compiling a register of every white good in the building. That ensures that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance can be quickly alerted and the safety risks resolved. Relying on consumers to register and respond to recalls in these buildings when the potential risk is so high must be considered wholly inadequate and unrealistic.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who have set out amendments to the Bill that are reasonable, proportionate and non-partisan, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not support them. I do not intend to repeat the arguments they have made cogently; I will just add a few comments of my own.
As the hon. Member for Southend West said, he has chaired or been part of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue for more than 20 years. I cannot claim to have been a member for that length of time, but I have learnt a huge amount in the time that I have been. It is one of the most effective groups within Parliament. The all-party parliamentary group on online and home electrical safety, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) chairs, has equally made a huge contribution on this issue, with the support of professional bodies. I urge the Minister to listen to the advice coming from those sources.
I do not know anybody who does not support this Bill. It is a very short Bill, and it aims to do two things. First, it clarifies what is meant by “common parts”, particularly in relation to external cladding and the responsibilities therein. Secondly, it is permissive, in terms of the introduction of secondary legislation to modify and add different classes of building in the future.
Had we been debating this two or three years ago, I think everyone would have said, “This is very sensible. Well done to the Government for getting on with it,” but we are not. We are three years post Grenfell. It seems like a piece of emergency legislation, when we should be on to discussing the nitty-gritty and more comprehensive measures. These amendments achieve that in various ways. I will not go through each one, but I would like to mention new clause 1.
We now have the results of part one of the Grenfell inquiry, and new clause 1 effectively asks the Government to take some of those recommendations on board. They include: that information on materials and construction is available to fire and rescue services; that plans of high-rise residential buildings are available; that inspection and testing of lifts is done properly; that evacuation procedures and information to residents are carried out properly; and that there is proper inspection of fire doors. A lot of us would have probably thought, pre Grenfell, that those things already happened, but they do not, and they did not. It is about time that they did. It is about time that the Government legislated and implemented these measures, rather than put out general, catch-all clauses.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a very good point about new clause 1 and the responsibilities. Would he accept that there is a significant responsibility on the original developers, architects and those involved in construction—I mentioned Laing O’Rourke, Taylor Wimpey, Redrow and others—to make sure that they are providing and have available the original construction diagrams of buildings? We have had a huge problem in Cardiff South and Penarth of not being able to get hold of those and then very expensive testing having to be done. Of course, the cost is then passed on to leaseholders, on top of the bills they may face for rectifying these problems in the first place.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is my experience from dealing with blocks in my constituency, and I am sure it is many other Members’ experience, that nobody wants ownership of this, nobody wants to pick up the tab and nobody wants to take responsibility—whether it is those who designed the building, those who built the buildings, those who manage the buildings or those who modified the buildings in ways that were not conceived. Somebody has to do that, and if they will not do that, it is Government’s responsibility to ensure that they do, and I do not think this Bill goes far enough in doing that.
New clauses 2 to 5—I am not going to go through those in detail—are, as I say, sensible and proportionate measures, which are designed to ensure that this legislation the Government are properly bringing forward works more effectively. I wait with bated breath to hear what arguments the Minister can put forward for not adopting those.
Let me come on to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend West, because I think that that is an important amendment. I am glad that it was found to be in scope and is being taken because he is absolutely right to say that, whereas a great deal of the focus has properly gone on construction and modification, particularly in relation to external cladding, insulation and so forth, it is also important that we look at the source of fires. It is rather a truism to say that, if we can control that source, we are going to get a lot fewer fires, whether or not they spread.
There are many issues that are being pursued here. Tomorrow, there is a ten-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on the registration of electrical appliances, so that where there is a need for recall, those matters can be in hand. What we are doing today is not comprehensive, but the two measures that have been proposed in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and new schedule are entirely sensible. Yes, they are quite onerous because what we are looking for is both a register of white goods and that there are regular checks. Those have been found appropriate for the private rented sector, and I wonder why they are not appropriate for high-rise buildings where we know, as a consequence of fires such as Lakanal, Grenfell and Shepherd’s Court, that people are particularly at risk.
Let me say a brief word about that because it is in my constituency. It is just over four years since the very serious fire at Shepherd’s Court. A tumble dryer, which not just should have been recalled and had not been recalled, but was going to be repaired and was awaiting repair, was being used according to the manufacturer’s instructions—wrong instructions—and therefore did catch fire, destroyed somebody’s home, spread to several other flats and caused the evacuation of an 18-storey block. Had it not occurred in the middle of the afternoon on a summer’s day, the consequences of that would have been dire. As it happened, there were no serious injuries, but the trauma of being involved in a fire of that nature, I do not think can be imagined. If I were the Minister, this would give me sleepless nights every night until these matters are resolved.
What I fear is that the Government are continuing to take what I can politely describe as an incremental approach here. Yes, these are complicated matters and more issues come to light—every time an investigation takes place, we find more problems with more types of building—but that is the world we live in, and it does not excuse the Government from responsibility. We are looking at height, but we are also looking at the type of buildings, the type of users of buildings and the type of cladding that is used on buildings. They could be hospitals, hotels, care homes or schools; they could be low-rise as well as high-rise buildings. They all have risks attached to them.
It sometimes feels like getting blood out of a stone to get the Government to widen their ambit and look beyond the very narrow classifications they have already dealt with in terms of ACM cladding, possibly high-pressure laminate cladding and possibly buildings down to 11 metres. The Government are very good at giving advice to others, and we all know the problems that that has caused with the sale and remortgage of properties and the necessity for inspections when the professional staff are not there to deal with these matters. The Government should be better at directing those responsible and, where necessary, providing the means for those responsible to remedy the serious risks that are apparent.
That is the problem with the Bill, which the amendments go some way towards clarifying. Whether we are looking at the source, the construction or the modification, the consequences can be the most serious. They can be matters of life, of the destruction of people’s homes, or of people living daily in fear of the risks that apply to their homes. I cannot think of anything less reasonable than that, frankly, so more than three years on from Grenfell, will the Minister look seriously at what is proposed and either adopt the amendments or, at the very least, say that the Government will bring forward their own legislation soon?
It rather feels that we have been overtaken by events because we now have the draft Building Safety Bill. That is a much more detailed piece of work, but I already have some criticisms of it—I will not bore the House with those tonight—and I look forward to more discussions on that as we go forward. I know that the Minister takes these matters seriously, but I do not feel that the Government are addressing them with the rigour or the detail that they need to be. Let us make a start on that today by adopting the amendments that have been put forward.
Sir Robert Neill
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); he and I have been around debates on this issue for a number of years now. That is true also of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess).
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security on the Treasury Bench. He is an old friend and a good man, and I know that he wants to do the right thing. I remember being the Minister responsible for the fire services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West kindly observed. Whether to deal with these issues by primary legislation, by secondary legislation or by way of regulation is always problematic, particularly when it is often necessary to update the actions required in the light of changing scientific and technical knowledge, and emerging knowledge about the right types of processes and procedures that should be followed to ensure safety.
However, given that everybody wants to achieve the same objective here, I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to the points that are made, because all the amendments have merit behind them. Whether it is possible to achieve their objectives through the Bill is something that I am prepared to listen to the Minister’s arguments about, but, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith just said, if it cannot be done through this Bill, may we please at the very least have a commitment about how it will be achieved?
Having said that by way of preliminary, let me deal with some of the specific points. The whole question of responsible owner is an important one that we need to tackle somehow. My right hon. Friend will have known that I would mention Northpoint in my constituency. He will have known because I banged his door down more than once about it when he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. He will know that despite his endeavours then, and despite the endeavours of the current Secretary of State, who made a speech back in January about the need to move on this—despite the establishment of a fund and the enhancement of the amount available in the fund—the process none the less remains so complicated that, as yet, residents in Northpoint have not been able to progress their claim. Of course, the scope of the scheme at the moment does not enable them thus far to pick up the interim costs, including that of waking watches and so on, which I will come to in a moment. All manner of obstacles come along—for example, insurance for any potential disruption to the railway, because the block is right next to a railway line. That was eventually overcome because an uninsurable amount of indemnity insurance was initially being requested. Happily, the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister responsible in the other place, assisted in that, but it indicates that although we have lots of initiatives, a number of the strands are not being joined together, a point to which I will briefly return in a moment.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Of course, those of us on the Opposition side welcome the Bill and support the clarification to fire safety law that it brings. In the wake of the terrible Grenfell Tower tragedy, which will stay etched in our minds despite the passing of time, it is so important that building owners take responsibility for managing and reducing the risk of fire. A key element of that is to seek to clarify which parts of the burden are covered by those requirements and what the responsibilities are. So why does the Bill feel like such a missed opportunity? It is partly about the amount of time it has taken for us to get this point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) outlined.
Back in October 2019, the Government pledged to implement the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay, yet here we are with the thinnest of bills amounting to three clauses, ducking the main issues and failing to include even the simplest of recommendations such as inspections of fire doors and the testing of lifts. But it is also a bigger missed opportunity, precisely because the Government have failed to learn the lessons. Of those there are many, but I want to briefly focus on one.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Earlier this year, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I and many others expressed concern that it was clear that it will not solve the problems that my constituents are facing. Having spoken to residents and leaseholders in my constituency and beyond who are suffering from anxiety and stress, I outlined how leaseholders in blocks with ACM and other types of cladding are experiencing problems in selling or remortgaging their homes. I raised the alarm that up to 60,000 worried residents are still living in buildings wrapped in lethal Grenfell-style cladding over three years after the fire. This is despite the Government setting a deadline of the end of 2019 for all social sector blocks to be made safe and a deadline of June 2020 for all private sector blocks to be made safe, both of which have now been missed. Instead, over 80% of private sector buildings and nearly half of social sector buildings affected have still not had this dangerous cladding removed and replaced. In fact, in June it was reported that the Government are now not expected to remove the same cladding that was on Grenfell from high-rise homes until a full two years after their own deadline and five years since the tragedy itself. How can this still be the case and how can this be right?
Yet the Bill before Parliament today is only a modest improvement, at best, to the fire safety regime. It does not do enough to break the tortuous pattern of buck-passing leaving residents trapped in between authorities and the building owners. It does not do enough to address the fact that many residents are suffering from anxiety and stress. It does not do enough to resolve the fact that leaseholders in blocks are experiencing problems in selling or remortgaging their homes. Most fundamentally, it is inadequate in protecting people who are being forced to continue to live in an unsafe building.
The Government promised in October to implement the full recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, yet nearly a year later the Bill does not contain a single measure recommended by the inquiry. For many, Grenfell showed how little black lives matter to the British establishment because of the unavoidable and clear fact that so many of the affected residents were of BAME and working-class backgrounds. Why is it that 72 people are killed in their homes and no one is deemed to be responsible? When will we ever get answers? When will the victims ever get justice?
We need to be sure that a Grenfell Tower fire never ever happens again. The truth is that decisions stretching back years have led to the gutting of the UK’s fire safety regime and the failure to regulate high-rise residential buildings properly for fire safety. Policies relating to fire and rescue services have too long been driven by an agenda of cuts, deregulation and privatisation fostered by the direct lobbying of private interests.
The Fire Brigades Union has raised concerns about the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 since it was first imposed, pointing out that many responsible persons who own and manage residential premises have not been assessed for the fire risks in their buildings and have not introduced sufficient measures to keep people safe in their homes. The Fire Safety Bill will require substantial investment to ensure adequate staffing levels and appropriate levels of training. Yet, according to the Fire Brigades Union, the Home Office’s impact assessment written for the Bill underestimates the amount and complexity of the work involved, and therefore underestimates the amount of funding necessary to ensure that the legislation is effective. In the meantime, firefighters have been taking on new areas of work to keep our communities safe. More than four fifths of fire and rescue services have delivered packages of food, medicines and other essentials to vulnerable persons, which is the most frequent activity carried out by firefighters.
We need more decisive action from the Government. Too many of my constituents are living in dangerous homes and facing huge financial and legal liabilities for remediation of building safety defects that are not of their making. Our firefighters, our constituents and our communities have the right to expect so much more.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I am pleased that the remaining stages of the Fire Safety Bill are being debated in the House today. Some hon. Members will know that, as an electrical engineer, fire safety is an issue that is of great interest to me. Having spoken on Second Reading, I was reassured that fellow Members felt as strongly as I do about this issue, and that has been demonstrated yet again in today’s debate.
Having managed my own electrical company for many years before being elected to this place, I know how vital it is for residents to know that their accommodation is safe and secure. It is for that reason that I spoke on Second Reading and have closely followed developments on this Bill since then.
That said, hon. Members noted possible issues regarding the responsibilities of leaseholders and freeholders under this legislation, which leads me on to why I shall be speaking in favour of the amendment tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) today. The amendment is of significant importance to building safety. We have all heard of portable appliance testing and we have all seen the green labels on our appliances, yet, although the appliance may be of good order, it is vital that the socket into which we plug these items is also of good order. Furthermore, all the wiring that provides our lighting and heating should also be inspected and tested. That is already law in rented properties, but it is only advised for privately owned premises. The fact that the tenure of an individual flat within the same block decides whether or not it is tested for safety is far from ideal, and it fails sufficiently to guarantee the safety of all residents.
As we have seen, fire spreads very quickly, and although buildings are constructed to stop this spread, this is not always successful. The reasons for that are numerous and can be down to deterioration of the fabric, poor management of fire prevention, or even poor building maintenance work when work is carried out on the fabric of the building by unskilled or unsupervised personnel. Fixed-wire testing of all wiring within the building is therefore of paramount importance.
Secondly, it is my belief that an appliance register is a must as we have all seen the effects that a faulty appliance can cause. A register by a responsible management company is not an onerous task and would substantially help towards reducing fires owing to a faulty appliance that has been part of a recall, but not actually recalled. I would hate to think, after all the time spent on the Bill, that it falls short and that another incident such as Grenfell then happens due to a faulty appliance or an electrical system that has failed because of a lack of maintenance. It is therefore crucial that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government looks into this, as reducing the source of fires is far better than preventing their spread. This amendment does exactly that, and if it cannot be addressed today, the Minister may want to further investigate the merits of what is being proposed in the upcoming fire safety consultation and the draft Building Safety Bill.
It is vital that the Government do not allow anomalies in this area if they are to truly demonstrate their commitment to ensuring that everyone has a safe place to live. I believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill. That said, while it may not go through the House today, it will be a great shame if right hon. and hon. Members do not press for what it is asking for in future.
This Bill is very welcome and it has my support. Three years on from Grenfell, it is high time that the wrongs of the past are put right. I also add that if the Minister would like my help with the Fire Safety Bill, please do ask.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support and welcome the Fire Safety Bill, but it is a first and only very small step in the right direction. As many hon. Members have said, we are three years on from the tragedy of Grenfell and this Bill is woefully inadequate. We support it and all the amendments that have been tabled. I would like to speak to new clauses 2 and 4 and ask the Minister for various assurances.
On new clause 2, on the accreditation of fire risk assessors, it is crucial that those conducting a fire risk assessment are accredited. Those of us on the Bill Committee heard shocking evidence of unqualified fire risk assessors declaring unsafe properties safe, and the Fire Brigades Union told us of one case that resulted in the death of one of their own. In Committee, the Minister for Crime and Policing shared our alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors and he posed the question of how many decades this situation had been allowed to persist unnoticed by anybody in the House or by any Government. Surely now is the time to ensure that this practice is brought to an end.
There must be a nationally recognised qualification and certification for those charged with assessing the safety of people’s homes. There also needs to be a freely accessible register of those holding such a qualification, held and maintained centrally by a public body, such as a Government-appointed regulator. However, I would go even further: the Hackitt review suggested that with something as vital as fire safety, the fire risk assessments should also be freely available in a publicly available register. That is vital for existing and prospective residents and for inspection and enforcement, so will the Minister provide a firm commitment, on the parliamentary record this evening, that a fire risk assessments register will be provided for in future legislation?
I turn to new clause 4, on the definition of a responsible person. It is right that we are absolutely clear on the Bill’s definition of a responsible person and I welcome the clause, because it ensures that a leaseholder without a direct interest in the freehold cannot be considered to be the responsible person. However, outside the scope of the Bill is a massive question about who should pay for the remedial work, and the Government have so far failed to tackle that head-on. Some leaseholders have paid building insurance premiums for years and they may still have valid new-build warranties, but the financial burden of new Government regulations or failures by developers is being shifted to tenants and leaseholders through increasing service charges and demands for one-off contributions.
In my constituency of St Albans, one residents association has been advised that individual leaseholders will face extra charges of around £20,000 per home. This is unacceptable. Some service charges for those residents have already increased sixfold since the Grenfell disaster in 2017 in preparation for the necessary works. I hope the Government agree that while so many individual circumstances are incredibly financially challenging right now, to be hit by a further £20,000 bill is completely unacceptable. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recommended in March that, given the urgency of these remediation works, it is necessary for the Government to provide the funding upfront. Will the Minister this evening commit to at least taking this up with the Chancellor and asking that the funding be provided for in the autumn statement to make sure all homes are safe?
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, and the measures it seeks to put in place to make buildings safer and prevent tragedies such as the one we witnessed with Grenfell Tower. I note, too, that other measures announced by the Government will further complement the Bill.
I have worked in construction over several years, during which time I was involved in the construction of fuel retail stations. I have also worked on oil rigs. I should also note that I am a landlord and thus declare an interest. Ensuring that homes and other buildings are safe is of the utmost importance. My experience has given me some insight into fire safety and how sometimes I see a disconnect between policymakers and those who deliver a service on the ground. The practicalities of day-to-day delivery can sometimes show a well-meaning policy to be out of touch with what actually happens on site. Let me give an example of what I mean.
I have known site managers ask for fire doors to be installed before a building had been made waterproof—dozens of doors. As to be expected with our British climate, it rained, and those fire doors and frames swelled. When they would not open and close properly, carpenters were asked, under time pressure, to plane doors down so that they would pass inspection. Of course, eventually these doors dried out and shrank. That meant they were again the wrong size, but this time with gaps so large that they were no longer fit to be fire doors. However, by that point, the doors had been signed off by inspectors, despite the fact that modifications had now made them no longer fit for purpose.
My plea is to ensure that when the Bill is finally delivered, people who are ultimately accountable for fire safety are not only competent by the certifications they may have, but that they are present on site and understand construction, not just fire safety alone. Furthermore, I make a plea for an ever-evolving and updating follow-up process that identifies any and all changes that new tenants can often make, often innocently for aesthetic purposes, which alter the fire rating of the system, such as the changing of door furniture and other material modifications. We need a dynamic model of fire safety that ensures it is delivered over time during construction and for the entire lifetime of a building. This Bill is a very positive step in the right direction, but it is a step because fire safety and any safety is always evolving.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
Over three years after the Grenfell Tower fire, any improvements to fire safety legislation are of course welcome; however, the Bill in its current form is only a modest improvement on the current fire safety regime. I do not have the experiences of so many hon. Members speaking in this debate today, but as the daughter of an ex-firefighter I certainly understand the importance of these issues, and I share the concerns highlighted by the Fire Brigades Union that the views and concerns of the people who live and work in high-risk buildings should be at the heart of the new system of fire safety across the UK.
That means that the voices of tenants must be heard in this process. Residents have raised concerns about the removal of flammable cladding and the role of waking watches. It is disturbing that three years on from Grenfell, there are still issues around the removal of flammable ACM cladding from both social and private-sector tower blocks. Coronavirus has caused many contractors to stop work on cladding sites, while others have not even begun due to complex legal disputes. These delays mean that residents of buildings continue to face extortionate fees for interim safety measures, most commonly waking watch. The National Fire Chiefs Council’s advice on waking watch has become outdated. Its guidance suggests that waking watch should be a temporary measure, yet some residents have been forced to pay for waking watches for a number of years. This is not a sustainable solution. New clause 5 would require both this Government and the Welsh Government to specify when a waking watch must be in place for buildings with fire safety failures.
The voice of firefighters also needs to be heard with regard to the Bill. The FBU believes that this legislation requires investment in professional firefighters and an expansion in the number of fire inspectors. Therefore, I have great concern that the Bill gives little consideration to the additional costs to the fire and rescue services in implementing these additional inspections. That comes on top of Government cuts to central funding to fire and rescue services by 28% in real terms between 2010 and 2016, followed by a further cut of 15% by 2020. These cuts have led to 11,000 fewer fire service personnel—that is 20% of the service. On Boris Johnson’s watch as Mayor of London, in eight years the London Fire Brigade was required to make—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady must refer to the Prime Minister as “the Prime Minister” here in the Chamber, please.
Kate Osborne
On the Prime Minister’s watch as Mayor of London, in eight years the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of over £100 million, leading to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire rescue units and three training appliances, the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction in fire rescue unit crewing levels. Ministers must commit to funding fire and rescue services sufficiently to ensure that fire authorities are able to inspect and enforce these new measures.
In conclusion, last October the Government promised to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower review in full and without delay. Nearly a year later, this Bill does not contain a single measure recommended by the inquiry. Therefore, I will be supporting new clause 1 as it places robust requirements on building owners or managers to implement the recommendations from phase one of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I will also be supporting new clauses 2 to 5. I urge the Government to make true on their promises: back the amendments and put everyone’s safety first.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I would like to add my voice to those of many colleagues across the Chamber who have expressed the frustration of many of our residents that, following the terrible incident at Grenfell, we have not yet brought to a conclusion many of the issues that the incident highlighted. We have followed the progress of the inquiry, with many views expressed by stakeholders—those personally affected because they had relatives in the building, and different parts of the industry and professional bodies. At the heart of much of the frustration is the question of liability. Who, ultimately, will meet the costs faced by our residents—whether they are landlords or occupiers of the property, freeholders or leaseholders—for the cost of remediation, which we know is substantial?
That issue plays out in many different parts of our lives. In my former role, I was responsible for the construction of a significant number of new schools. Inspections of those new buildings subsequently identified that some of the fire safety work, signed off and done in recent times, did not meet the standards that we would expect. We need to ensure that the question of liability is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Those on the Front Bench know that there are many different ways in which that might be achieved, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that.
I turn to two specific points on which it would be helpful to hear a little more from my right hon. Friend. The first is the role of the responsible person. Across Government, where we are concerned about the degree of accountability for a life-and-limb, critical activity or service, it has been common practice to identify an individual post holder who is accountable for ensuring that work is done to the relevant standard. In children’s social care, we have the director of children’s services. In public health, we have the director of public health. In businesses, we have chief accountable officers.
We also know from long experience, with all sorts of things having gone wrong across different parts of those services, that having someone identified as accountable will only bring about the improvement that the House wishes to see if we can be confident that that person has the necessary qualities to do the work required and the ability to carry out the duties we are imposing on them. A number of Members have expressed views about whether there will be sufficient people with the knowledge of fire safety to undertake this role. It is crucial to ensure that whoever is responsible in individual buildings, on estates, on local authority estates or on school estates, we can rely on them to carry out that duty effectively. It will be critical to ensure that training, qualifications and all the rest of it sit behind that.
Secondly, ensuring that that person has the ability to do what sometimes may be intrusive and expensive work that may not always attract the consent of the householder will be a major issue. Earlier on in my political career, I spent a bit of time as chairman of a housing management and maintenance sub-committee at a local authority responsible, as a landlord, for over 12,000 properties. I am conscious that the local authority sometimes had to take several dozen tenants to court every year to get access to properties to do—at no cost to the tenant—essential safety checks and safety-critical work. We should not assume in this House that, by saying that we are going to designate a responsible person, we can be confident that they will be able to do what they need to do. I look forward to my right hon Friend fleshing out the further measures that we might need to take to ensure that responsible people are able to undertake the work to the relevant standard, to provide the assurance that we all want on behalf of our residents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the next hon. Member, might I remind everyone in the Chamber, but especially new Members who have possibly not quite got into their stride on the matter as we have not had normal times—I took the matter up with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—that it is obligatory to refer to hon. Members not by name, but by their constituency? I call Matt Rodda—I can call Members by their names.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate tonight.
Thank you for reminding me of that very important point as well. I would like to speak in support of new clauses 1 and 2 and the other new clauses tabled by the Opposition on the duties of building owners and accreditation of fire risk assessors. However, before I address those important points, I would first like to reflect on the scale of the challenge facing our country following the Grenfell disaster and, indeed, the issues in my own constituency of Reading East. I would like to briefly pay tribute to the Grenfell families, and I am sure we can all agree that our thoughts are with them continually after what happened in the disaster. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) earlier, I wish to show my support for our firefighters, both for their bravery and their professionalism.
Three years after Grenfell, the issue of dangerous cladding is still a daily reality for thousands of residents, including many in my constituency, and for many more, there are a whole series of other issues, such as fire safety concerns about their own properties or concerns on behalf of friends or relatives living in accommodation that is subject to those risks. One resident put it to me so poignantly when she contacted me, when she said:
“Imagine coming home every night to a flat which you fear is unsafe to live in, and yet you are unable to sell the flat or to move out of it.”
That is the reality that thousands of people in our country continue to face. That story is repeated time and again in towns the size of Reading or much smaller, and in great cities around the country. Indeed, it extends way beyond the issue of ACM cladding, although that in itself is a huge issue for the country.
To give an example, in Reading and Woodley there are several blocks containing Grenfell-style cladding, and others with other forms of composite materials on them, as well as wooden cladding, all of which have been found to be highly dangerous and flammable. Indeed, since Grenfell there have been fires in Bolton and in Barking with the materials that I have mentioned, similar to those found in my constituency.
In addition to tall buildings and the issues that we have talked about tonight, there are also fire safety concerns about lower-rise buildings. In my constituency, there are huge numbers—possibly into the thousands—of lower-rise flats below the 9-metre limit, many of which have what I believe may be serious fire safety issues. That affects tens of thousands of people around the country.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point when he talks about the impact that this is having on many families. He may have instances in his constituency, as I do in mine, where couples have divorced but are unable to separate properly because they cannot sell their flat. The mental strain, illness and stress that that imposes on many residents is absolutely phenomenal.
Matt Rodda
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, because it points out just how dire this problem is, on so many fronts. The point I was about to make relates not just to the taller buildings or even the 9-metre ones, but to houses in multiple occupation. There has been a huge growth in the number of houses that have been divided up into bedsits or small flats in my constituency, as there probably has in his north London seat. I have concerns about those, as do other Members, although they are not addressed by this Bill, and I urge the Government to consider that matter as well.
This Bill is long overdue. I hope it will help, but I fear that it does not go far enough, and I urge Ministers to look again at the issue in much more detail and tighten their grip on it. A much more substantial response is needed, both in legislation and in the level of resources available to fire services, as has been mentioned, and to local authorities. Strengthening this response, both in legislation and resources, will be particularly helpful in respect of buildings that have multiple owners, such as blocks with leaseholders, tenants and freeholders, where the fire services, local authorities or contractors face a deeply confusing jigsaw puzzle of ownership. In many cases, it is hard to track people down. In some cases, the owners may be corporations based overseas or there may be other forms of ownership that are difficult to piece together. A more robust approach combining legislation and the funds to support local authorities and fire services would help residents in lower-rise accommodation. Berkshire’s fire service has urged me and MPs from across our county to speak up about the issues found in many towns mainly in lower-rise accommodation, not in the high-rise blocks discussed in the Bill, because of the huge number of those sorts of flats in towns such as Reading, Bracknell and Slough.
I am conscious of time, so I shall turn to new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 is particularly important, because, as many people involved in this issue recognise, we face real problems in improving safety in some private blocks. The new clause would speed up what can be a very lengthy process by requiring a manager or a lead figure to share information with the fire service about both fire safety and evacuation plans, which are important matters.
New clause 2 also raises a significant but simple point: fire inspectors should be accredited. I hope the new clause would address a long-standing loophole that I understand was first introduced unwittingly in legislation in the 1980s. It takes years for a fire safety inspector to complete their training, so it seems obvious that they would need accreditation. As has been mentioned by Members from across the House this evening, a common feature of any regulatory system is having people who have a known role of this type accredited.
I hope that tonight’s debate has allowed a further discussion of these issues and allowed us address these points in some detail. I urge the Minister to look at the matters in hand, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak tonight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me to speak on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a little more frightening than a raging fire, as it is then that we truly understand the little we are able to do in our human state. We are so thankful for those in the fire service, who use their expertise and training, yet, ultimately, lay their lives on the line every time they answer the call. Others have said it, but I want to put on record my thanks to them for all they do and have done.
The Grenfell tragedy had repercussions for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so although it happened on the mainland, and although this legislation is for England and Wales, I wanted to make a brief contribution to ask that the lessons learned are shared with Northern Ireland. When the Grenfell tragedy took place, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the bodies with responsibility for this area right away checked all their high-rise flats to see whether the danger that there was on the mainland was or was not apparent in Northern Ireland. Some steps were taken right away. I know it is a devolved matter, but I wish to mention something at the end that the Minister might take on board, and it relates to what we have learned in Northern Ireland.
This Bill is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland, so my comments will be brief. It is clear that the improvements in this Bill to create greater fire safety must be considered UK-wide. My colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly have taken seriously the lessons that we have learned from the absolute tragedy at Grenfell. I take this opportunity once again to remind all the families involved that our thoughts remain with them as they try to rebuild their lives. I do not think there is anybody anywhere in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or further afield who was not touched by what happened, as we watched the tragedy unfold.
I echo other hon. Members’ comments about the danger of electric goods, and in particular about the need to have them checked so that they meet the standards that we have in the United Kingdom, which are some of the highest in the world. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who represents that great city of Southend, has been an excellent, outstanding spokesperson on this matter, along with our former colleague and friend, Jim Fitzpatrick. I remember him fondly; he, I and the hon. Member for Southend West shared many debates in that other great place, Westminster Hall, on electrical safety and other things. We had some very good and enjoyable times. One thing that was outlined was the opportunity for people to buy online goods that may not meet the standards. I am sure the Minister will say how the Government are addressing those issues for online purchases, which I believe need to be checked.
I welcome the remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings, and the commitment of £20 million of funding to enable fire and rescue services to review or inspect all high-rise multi-occupied residential buildings by the end of 2021, but it is clear that more needs to be done. Right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House have said that, and hopefully the Minister will be able to say what other steps the Government are looking at to try to make improvements.
I do not want to be alarmist, but the Northern Ireland Assembly’s inquiries into safety standards raised not just the issue of cladding—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive carried out those risk assessments, because cladding is its responsibility—but concerns about reports that 63% of Northern Ireland Housing Executive wall cavity insulation may be defective. There was some concern that the cavity wall insulation could in some way lead to worse fires and could be a conduit, allowing fires to go through buildings. I do not expect an answer from the Minister today if he has not got one, but I know that he always follows up, and we thank him for that, so perhaps that could be looked at. We are awaiting more information, but that raises a pertinent issue. I believe that it must be absolutely clear in any legislation that it is the building owner’s responsibility to make safe not simply the outside of the walls but the inner cavities. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify how that is legislated for in this Bill.
Has the Minister had any discussions with other regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about a UK-wide approach to this issue? I often say in this House that lessons learned in England and Wales can and must be shared with the devolved Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. This debate is not about that, but none the less it is important that we share things. We can learn from each other in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If things are learned in Northern Ireland, they should be shared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If they are learned in England and Wales, they should be shared with us in Northern Ireland, and with Scotland. An improvement can be made UK-wide so that all the people of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
It is a privilege to respond to this debate. It is the first time I have had the chance to speak physically in this Chamber since March, so it is a great pleasure to be here tonight to respond to what has been a passionate, well-informed and very serious debate on issues that touch on concerns that we share across this Chamber. Like others, I very much underline our recognition of the context of the Bill: the Grenfell Tower fire and the need to ensure that people feel safe and are safe in their homes. I pay tribute to the community of Grenfell—Grenfell United and more broadly—on their determination to seek justice and change, and I recognise the responsibilities we hold to them in following through on that.
Andy Slaughter
In Grenfell Tower, there will have been secure tenants,
leaseholders and private tenants. Why should regulations apply to some of those groups and not others just on the basis of tenure?
James Brokenshire
I was coming on to precisely that point. In her review, Dame Judith Hackitt recognised that residents themselves have a role to play and recommended clearer rights and obligations for residents to maintain the fire safety of individual dwellings, working in partnership with the duty holder. There are provisions on this within the draft Building Safety Bill, published in July, setting out a clear duty.
A number of different measures are in place, but I take the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West made very seriously. The Government are committed to ensuring that the electrical products that people buy are safe. I recognise the concerns, and we will look across Government at whether there are any gaps in the current regime and proposals to strengthen accountability in this area. I give that assurance to my hon. Friend to work with him. I would like to pay tribute, as he did, to Electrical Safety First for its important work in this arena. I hope to work with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House to identify gaps, and if there are still gaps, we, like so many Members, want to see those filled effectively. With that assurance, I hope my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the new clauses, which were tabled in Committee, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central highlighted. On new clause 2, I agree that there is a clear need for reform in relation to fire risk assessors, to improve capacity and competency standards. That includes the role for the industry-led competency steering group under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s building safety programme and its sub working group on fire risk assessors. That group is looking at ways to increase competence and capacity in the sector. The competency steering group will publish a final report shortly, including proposals in relation to creating a register of fire risk assessors, third party accreditation and a competence framework for fire risk assessors. The Government will give detailed consideration to the report’s recommendations.
The Government are also working with the National Fire Chiefs Council, the fire risk assessor sector and the wider fire sector to take forward plans for addressing both the short-term and long-term capability and capacity issues within the sector. The fire safety consultation will also bring forward proposals on issues relating to competence. Members are understandably keen for this work to be brought forward, but it is vital that we get this right and that the Government listen to the advice in order to frame this effectively and appropriately. Once the fire safety consultation responses have been considered—as I said, it closes on 12 October—the Government will be able to determine the most appropriate route to implement changes.
New clause 3 seeks to impose a new duty on inspectors to prioritise their inspections of multi-occupied residential buildings by risk. I would like to underline some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing in Committee. As he said, the Government’s position is that adequate and established arrangements are in place to ensure that enforcement authorities target their resources appropriately and are accountable for their decisions without the need to make it a statutory requirement. The fire and rescue national framework for England requires fire and rescue authorities to have a locally determined risk-based inspection programme in place for enforcing compliance with the fire safety order. The framework sets out the expectation that fire and rescue authorities will target their resources on those individuals or households who are at greater risk from fire in the home and on those non-domestic premises where the life safety risk is greatest. The national framework for Wales includes similar provisions.
In parallel, the regulators’ code states that all regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk, take an evidence-based approach to determine the priority risks in their area of responsibility and allocate resources where they would be most effective in addressing those priority risks. The building risk review programme, which will see all high-rise residential buildings reviewed or inspected by fire and rescue authorities by the end of 2021, is a key part of this.
The programme will enable building fire risk to be reviewed and data to be collected to ensure that local resources are targeted at the buildings most at risk. The Government have provided £10 million of funding to support that work, not only to facilitate the review of all buildings, but to strengthen the National Fire Chiefs Council’s central strategic function to drive improvements in fire protection. That is in addition to a further £10 million grant to bolster fire protection capacity and capability within local fire and rescue services. The allocation of funding is based on the proportion of higher-risk buildings, further demonstrating the need to target resources at risk. I remind the House that we have also established the task and finish group that will be responsible for providing a recommendation on how the Bill should be commenced before the end of this month—obviously I have commented on that work and how the group is expected to report.
Sarah Jones
Ahead of setting up the Grenfell Tower fire public inquiry, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said that she wanted
“to provide justice for the victims and their families who suffered so terribly”
and that
“we cannot wait for ages to learn the immediate lessons”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 168.]
However, despite being long delayed, the Grenfell Tower fire phase 1 inquiry’s recommendations are now nearly one year old, and they have not yet been implemented.
The Minister will have heard the frustration from across the House: it is not just on the Opposition Benches but coming loud and clear from the Government Benches, and the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) put it best. It is always never the right time for these things to be implemented with this Government—there is a consultation, a taskforce and the dreaded roundtable followed by another roundtable. It is simply not good enough.
New clause 1 attempts to press the Government to deliver on the first set of recommendations from the Grenfell Tower phase 1 inquiry. The Minister is a good man, but his response is not good enough. We must lead. That sense of momentum he talked about has to have meaning. We have to act to do what we can, three years on from the Grenfell Tower fire. The official Opposition therefore want to press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
James Brokenshire
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Grenfell Tower fire was a national tragedy that shook confidence in the building safety system to the core. As a Government, we remain fully committed to fixing that system, to reforming fire and building safety and to ensuring that the events of 14 June 2017 are never repeated. People have a right to be safe and feel safe in their homes.
On the day of publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted in principle all 12 recommendations that were addressed to the Government directly, 11 of which will require implementation in law. The Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005—the fire safety order— is an important first step towards enacting these recommendations.
In that context, I thank the Minister for Crime and Policing, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who led the Bill in Committee on 25 June, all the Members who served on that Committee and applied scrutiny to the Bill, and indeed all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate earlier today.
As Members are aware, this is a short and technical Bill to clarify that the scope of the fire safety order applies to the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors of multi-occupied residential buildings. This provides a firm foundation to implement the Grenfell Tower phase 1 legislative recommendations that focus primarily on inspection of high-rise residential buildings by building owners and managers and information sharing with fire and rescue services.
I want to take a moment to underline that this is part of a bigger picture. The Government have published the draft Building Safety Bill, which will shortly be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. The Building Safety Bill takes forward the recommendations from Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and will put in place new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and ensure that residents have a stronger voice in the system. Alongside the Building Safety Bill, the Government published a fire safety consultation, which includes proposals to strengthen the fire safety order, improve compliance with the order, implement the Grenfell Tower phase one recommendations, and progress arrangements for consultation between building control bodies and fire and rescue authorities in relation to building work.
Our programme of work is not limited to legislation and includes having established a remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings. For those who register for the fund, they are now able to submit their funding applications. We are also undertaking, in conjunction with the fire service, a building risk review programme for all high-rise residential buildings in England by December 2021, supported by £10 million of new funding.
The Building Safety Bill is a very detailed piece of legislation that aims to create significant changes to improve building and fire safety. Moreover, our fire safety consultation contains proposals to strengthen a number of areas of the fire safety order. Together, the Fire Safety Bill, the draft Building Safety Bill and the fire safety consultation will create fundamental improvements to building safety standards and ensure that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes.
During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, we have had good and robust debates in this House which have benefited the Bill in airing and showing the issues that are at stake. Hon. and right hon. Members have underlined why this matters to their constituents, why this matters for safety and why this matters for people feeling confident in their homes. That is a message and an objective that the Government absolutely will follow through on. It is why we believe the Bill is important in setting good and solid foundations upon which we can now proceed. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
On Third Reading, I reiterate that the Opposition support the Fire Safety Bill, but we are desperately disappointed that the Government have not gone much further and much faster on improving fire safety.
I regret that the Government did not choose to support Labour’s new clause 1, which would have implemented the key recommendations of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s Grenfell Tower inquiry phase one report, published in October. It is difficult to understand why the Government, who promised to implement the recommendations in full and without delay, have not chosen to make the concessions to include provision for them in the Bill. It is difficult to understand why responsible owners should not have to share evacuation plans with residents or undertake regular inspections of flat doors or lifts. It is difficult to understand why the Government are content with a situation where a fire risk assessor needs no qualifications whatever. It is difficult to understand why we cannot define the responsible owner in such a way to avoid leaseholders, who are already paying so much, footing the bill for things that are not their fault.
Endless promises of action, statements, consultations, taskforces and roundtables without any real change have tied the entire building safety world in knots, with hundreds of thousands of people paying the consequences, living in unsafe homes or unable to sell their flat because there is such confusion over which buildings are safe and what pieces of paper are needed to prove they are safe and who is liable. At every stage, the Opposition have sought to be constructive and to help the Government to improve the Bill. There is a lot more work to be done and we hope that as much of it as possible will be achieved now through secondary legislation.
Having debated our amendments on Report, I want to raise an important point about the implications of the Bill for our fire and rescue services. We welcome the high level of inspection and enforcement that the Bill requires, but we need clarity about the funding and resources provided to carry out such work. Over the past decade, we have seen devastating cuts to firefighter numbers, amounting to 20% of the service. Fire inspectors have seen some of the largest cuts, yet the Bill requires much more of them, and many more of them. I would like the Minister to set out what additional funding will be provided to the fire and rescue services to undertake this work.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue services, as the Minister did, who go above and beyond to keep us safe and have worked tirelessly to protect us throughout the covid pandemic. I am grateful to the Ministers, the officials and the House staff who have worked with us on the Bill, and I give particular thanks to Yohanna Sallberg and Kenneth Fox, who have brilliantly supported me through the passage of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members who have made such important contributions today and at previous stages of the Bill. There is much expertise in this House—either built over years of work in this place or personal experience in jobs that people have done before coming to this place—that the Government should listen to with more urgency.
In July 2017, I made my maiden speech during the first full debate in this Chamber on the Grenfell tragedy. I never would have thought that three years later, I would be facing a Government that are still yet to pass a single Act of Parliament to deliver on the clear promises made in the wake of that tragedy. The most important aim of the Bill is to clarify fire safety rules to prevent loss of life or damage to buildings from fire. It is to ensure that our constituents can live safely in their homes. I want to say to all those stuck living in unsafe blocks, but in particular to the Grenfell survivors and the victims’ families, that Opposition Members will not rest until every measure necessary is in place to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Grenfell Tower is in my constituency of Kensington, so I start by paying tribute to the Grenfell community—to the bereaved and to the survivors, who have borne their loss with such dignity. This Bill is a small step in implementing the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry, and I commend it to the House, but I urge Government to move with a sense of urgency. I would also say that the Bill is just one small component. Clearly, the Building Safety Bill and the consultation on the fire safety order are also critically important. We owe it to the Grenfell community to never, ever allow a tragedy of this kind to happen again, so let us ensure that we implement state-of-the-art building and fire safety regulations with urgency.
Sir David Amess
I rise to support the Third Reading of the Bill and wish it a swift passage in the other House. The Bill has been welcomed by public and industry bodies, noting the expected increase in the enforcement action by fire service authorities as a result of its clarifications, as well as an expectation that it will impose greater burdens on the responsible person in multi-occupancy residential buildings.
On 20 July, the Government also published the draft Building Safety Bill, which takes forward their fundamental reform of the building safety system, introducing new regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products. Unquestionably, the Bill would strengthen the whole regulatory system for building safety as well as ensuring that there is greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the life cycle of buildings within the scope of the more stringent regime.
Having said all that, I very much hope that the Government will not ignore all the points that have been made by the Opposition and the arguments that I have tried to make this evening. We cannot, and must not, waste any more time by pushing the issue of electrical safety around between different Departments. We owe it to those who lost their lives in Grenfell and other fires to find the parliamentary time and the right vehicle to enshrine electrical safety in legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
House of Commons Members’ Fund
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to Anne Main, the former Member for St Albans, who was part of the Members’ Fund? I thank the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell) for agreeing to serve. I am sure that they will both do a very good job.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I will be very brief. I cannot disagree with anything that was just said; I thoroughly endorse that position.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household (Stuart Andrew)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for her kind comments, and I would like to add my thanks and those of the Government to former Member Anne Main.
Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission for its third report. I wish Alasdair Morgan all good wishes for his work and thank him for serving on the Committee.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Again, I will be very brief. I thoroughly endorse the reappointment of Alasdair to the Electoral Commission. He has done an excellent job so far and his wealth of experience from this place and the Scottish Parliament certainly is of great benefit to the Commission.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household (Stuart Andrew)
I certainly endorse all the comments made and I thank Mr Morgan for his continued service.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission for its second report. Professor Colin Mellors was appointed chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on 1 January. His current term of office began then and comes to an end on 31 December. I think it would be helpful for the House to hear exactly what the Speaker’s Committee said about Professor Mellors:
“Together, the responses gave us a positive impression of the way Professor Mellors had carried out the role. They suggested that he had taken an open and inclusive approach to chairing the Commission, that he had effectively maintained the Commission’s independence, impartiality and credibility, and that he had brought to the role a strong understanding of the local government sector and the wider policy context.”
The Committee
“also heard that Professor Mellors had ensured the Commission’s finances were carefully scrutinised to enable it to deliver value for money.”
We support the Government’s motion endorsing Professor Colin Mellors.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I, too, wish to support and endorse the appointment of Professor Colin Mellors. I also wish to spare him vast amounts of unnecessary work.
I wonder whether the Government might consider that, in the midst of the biggest crisis this country has faced since the second world war, it is the wisest thing to ask Professor Mellors, or indeed other parts of the state, to spend the next few years engaging with a top-down restructuring of local government, therefore focusing local authorities’ efforts not on tackling the virus or on providing schooling or care or looking after our local communities, but on looking inwardly—navel contemplating; reorganising the deckchairs on the Titanic—when instead they should be focusing on serving their communities.
I wonder whether the Minister agrees that top-down reorganisation and restructuring is always dangerous because we always find that people take their eye off the main ball and the main focus. In the midst of the biggest crisis since 1945, is it wise—and indeed in touch with public opinion and what is going on in this country— to publish a White Paper that Professor Mellors will now have to get to grips with, as he sets new boundaries in much bigger councils, and sets new electoral limits, and tell him, and indeed, the whole of the local government community, “Spend the next two years navel contemplating, talking to yourselves and rewriting the headed paper, instead of providing support for public health and fighting back against the virus and the economic consequences”?
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Stuart Andrew)
I join the Opposition spokesman in the comments she made about Professor Colin Mellors. I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the views of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), but I am sure that the glowing references we have heard about Professor Mellors mean that he will be more than capable of dealing with anything that is sent his way.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing Developments: West Sussex
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is good to see colleagues from West Sussex here this evening. The Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), wanted to be here, but is away on Government business overseas. He is taking a close interest in these matters, and is also keen to see that the Government find the right balance.
West Sussex is a proud county that has contributed greatly to the history of this country. Romans, Saxons and Normans all settled in Sussex first before going on to make a lasting impression on many other parts of the United Kingdom. Much more recently, our ports and airfields were central to the defence of our realm in two world wars. The Minister’s Department may be interested to know that the six Sussex rapes are among the very oldest recorded form of local administrative units in the country, still reflected today in the six martlets on the Sussex flag.
More pertinently to today’s debate, Sussex sits between two immovable features—the coast of the English channel and Greater London. In many places, it is the only ribbon of truly green land preventing unbroken concrete from connecting the two. I requested that the House discuss this important issue back in July, as my constituents in Arundel and South Downs were already feeling the strain of a planning system that had the unique quality of pleasing absolutely no one. I suspect that I make common cause with the Minister when I say that the planning system we have today is too slow, too adversarial and too expensive, and yet still manages to create huge amounts of blight and burden on communities without delivering the volume, quality or even type of homes that we need. Planning permissions are already in place for more than 1 million homes, enough to satisfy the nation’s needs for years to come, but those homes are not getting built. Labour’s tax raid on pensions channelled savings instead into buy-to-let property, and we have a legal commitment to net zero, but we are building homes in the middle of nowhere that are wholly reliant on a car to go anywhere.
Housing is a market where intervention has been heaped on intervention, so that, like a teenager’s carpet, we can no longer see the original pattern. That matters terribly, because right now so many of my constituents from Adversane to West Grinstead, Barnham to Wineham, and in villages of every letter of the alphabet in between, are having their lives blighted by the prospect of inappropriate and unsustainable development. It is on their behalf that I speak today.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. The ancient parish of Ifield just outside Crawley borough is facing the threat of some 10,000 houses in unsustainable circumstances on the floodplain. Would he agree that it is very important that while we should provide additional housing for future generations in West Sussex, we must have the environment paramount in our considerations?
Andrew Griffith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. I shall come to the point about the provision in the planning system for different landscapes, including floodplains, which, as we know, West Sussex has in abundance.
The aspiration of owning one’s own home is one that every homeowner, parent and grandparent can support. I was proud last December to stand on a manifesto that pledged to tackle a problem that has been ducked by so many previous Governments, but let us also be clear that that manifesto also said that we would
“guarantee that we will protect and restore our natural environment”.
It also said we would “increase bio-diversity” and devolve
“power to people and places across the UK.”.
I am an optimist, and I believe that, with care, it should be possible to do all those things.
The Government’s recent planning White Paper has many features that I welcome, such as local design statements, more emphasis on brownfield land and faster neighbourhood plans, but I would argue that, perhaps not for the first time this summer, well-meaning ministerial intent has been sabotaged by a “mutant algorithm” cooked up in the wet market of Whitehall. There are seemingly three fundamental flaws in the standard methodology. First, it appears to be entirely blind to geography, which is not a great look for a planning system. If, as in West Sussex, much land is physically incapable of being developed or is protected in law, the algorithm appears to completely ignore this. For example, nearly 50% of Mid Sussex District Council’s land is in the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty, another 10% is in the South Downs national park and the district is one of the most wooded in the whole south-east. My constituents in Hassocks, Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common are rightly concerned that if this protected land were excluded without an adjustment to the numbers, the algorithm would force unrealistic amounts of development in what should, in any case, be a precious green corridor linking the ecology of the South Downs and the High Weald.
Also, the algorithm must only work in dry weather, as much of my constituency lies on the floodplains of the Rivers Arun, Adur and Rother, something that even a cursory look at the lacework of blue lines on an Ordnance Survey map would reveal. Anyone relying on the Environment Agency’s narrow definition of flood risk will spend much of their winter bewildered by the waters lapping around their waist, as residents of Pulborough, Fittleworth and Henfield know all too well. Promoters of a 7,000-home development known as Mayfield Market Town clearly fall into that category, as locals know that a large proportion of the proposed site sits under water for a good proportion of the winter. I guess we could build the homes on stilts, like those over-water tropical villas, but that does not quite explain how the residents will get in their cars to drive the many miles that development in such an unsustainable location would require. All that is before we take into account the down-catchment impact of run-off from concreting an area that currently acts as a huge sponge, filling our chalk aquifers and preventing flooding of our coastal towns downstream. My constituents in Hassocks and Barnham have both had the disturbing experience of raw sewage emerging from the drains after planners failed to understand how the water table on a floodplain works.
Secondly, the standard method algorithm is backward looking and self-perpetuating; unlike the famous investment disclaimer, past performance here is treated as entirely a predictor of future success. Districts with high rates of house building in the past are assumed to continue that into perpetuity, so this fatally undermines any opportunity to level up away from the over-heated south-east of England.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Many of my constituents in Bracknell and the Wokingham Borough Council area are very sensitive about unsustainable house building. Having seen the targets that have been put together in the Lichfields table, they are rightly concerned about what lies ahead. Given that both councils that I represent have proudly and boldly delivered against the local plan in recent years, does my hon. Friend think that for the Government to be worthy of their pre-eminence, they need to apply some form of judgment on top of the science?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the role of judgment in any planning system—particularly one with a Government who are committed to supporting local democracy.
The report from the levelling up taskforce, which was published only today—I congratulate the author on attracting such attention to such an important issue—shows a huge southward shift in the UK population. Before the second world war, roughly a fifth of the population lived in the south of England outside London, while twice as many lived in the north and Scotland, taken together. Now equal numbers live in both. Between 1981 and 2018, the population of London increased by nearly a third, while that of the north-east grew by less than 1%. By piling on even more growth in the south-east, the algorithm is locking the north and midlands into permanent disadvantage, just as Ofqual’s formula dictated that someone from a school that had not done well in the past could never do well in the future. For much of the north and midlands, the algorithm suggests a lower number than the current one, while in the south it significantly increases. Despite the Government’s stated intent, the new formula is levelling down, not levelling up.
Thirdly, the formula uses a simplistic affordability ratio as a false proxy for local need. For an area impacted by central London wages, such as Horsham, the algorithm produces a result that would take the housing stock from 55,000 in 2011 to almost 90,000 over 20 years. That is growth of 62%. However fertile the local population may be, it seems an unlikely outcome at a time when the reproduction rate of the settlement population is barely at replacement levels. Trying to influence affordability through supply has been likened to a person standing on an enormous iceberg and trying to melt it by pouring kettles of hot water over their feet.
The algorithm needs more work. The reason that matters is that high, top-down housing targets induce developers to submit large and unsustainable schemes. Even when they do not get built, they end up blighting residents for years on end. That is the case for Horsham District Council, which, in calling for sites, has encouraged developers to put forward greenfield sites in Adversane and West Grinstead. Both are in the middle of countryside and only accessible by road, and the nearest town of Horsham is a 10-mile drive away. They would create millions of car journeys a year, and there is no capacity in local schools and GP surgeries or local employment opportunities. Ironically, in that particular case, the alternative is the Government themselves, through Homes England, which claims on its website to be able to build 10,000 homes much closer to existing hospitals, schools and shopping facilities in the north of the borough. If that is the case, I say get on with it.
The perfect example of this blight is Mayfield Market Town, which has impacted 27,000 residents across 17 parishes for seven years, dating back to 2013. Residents, through Locals Against Mayfield Building Sprawl and the inter-parish group, have held 73 meetings, and have had to raise and spend £140,000 to fund barristers and commission experts’ reports on a scheme that, to the best of my knowledge, not a single elected person or layer of government in West Sussex has ever supported.
Let me reassure the Minister that in West Sussex we are not nimbys. Over the past three years, Sussex has delivered 6,000 homes per year and has hit 97% of its allocation. I think good development is organic. The historical growth of our small towns and villages can be traced like rings on a tree. Good development supports the village school, the village shop and the village pub. Without exception, adopted local neighbourhood plans have made healthy provision for growth, and have just got on with it. The tiny parish of Albourne committed to 14% growth in a parish of just 260 homes. It approved this at a referendum in September 2016, and by the middle of this year 21 new homes had already been delivered. Every day that we persist in trying to build the wrong homes in the wrong places is another day when we are not building the right homes in the right places.
There is a better way. First, we should adjust the housing numbers formula not just for national parks and areas of natural beauty but for a broader category of floodplains, high-quality agricultural land and vital green corridors for wildlife. As currently constructed, the logical inference is that the more protected land we have in an area, the greater the density of development on the remainder. It is like a closed-loop error in computer code that would see the South Downs national park end up like Central Park, Manhattan, with protected areas hemmed in on every side by high-rise development.
If we are serious about the guarantee to protect and restore our natural environment, we have to build in protection for green corridors for wildlife to move through the landscape and for natural processes to operate effectively. These cannot be cosmetic or artificial—they need to have the original ancient biome intact. One such green corridor is the ribbon of land between Barnham and Eastergate connecting the coastal plain to the national park. Another is between Henfield, Sayers Common, Cowfold and West Grinstead that connects the South Downs with the High Weald. It contains the Knepp estate, where Isabella and Charlie have made such an iconic contribution to rewilding. It hosts one of the largest concentrations of nightingales in the UK, the biggest breeding population of rare purple emperor butterflies, all five indigenous species of owl and, crucially, about 16 breeding turtle doves—the most likely next bird species to face extinction on British soil. This summer, the first white stork chicks born in the UK for hundreds of years hatched there. This ecological gem is at risk from plans to build a 3,500-home new town on nearby greenfield land in West Grinstead, bringing 10,000 new residents, light pollution, and millions of additional car journeys.
I accept that they may currently be somewhat out of favour, but, as the excellent Sussex Wildlife Trust has highlighted to me, there are also extremely rare bat colonies relying on the native woodlands, ancient hedgerows and streams of West Sussex. In fact, West Sussex is home to the UK’s rarest mammal, the greater mouse-eared bat, which is an extinction event happening in real time and on our watch. As its name suggests, it has large, mouse-like ears and a body so large that it has been likened to a rabbit hanging from a wall. In flight, its wings can stretch to nearly half a metre wide. Only a handful of mammal species live longer relative to their body size than humans, and the greater mouse-eared bat is one of the longest-lived of all: it can clock up more than 35 years. Scientists recently discovered that this is probably due to the fact that its telomeres—the string-like material at the end of its chromosomes—do not shorten with age, an insight that could very possibly help humans live longer. Tragically, as the result of its habitat being destroyed, the population of this great creature is believed to be down to a single solitary male.
Secondly, we should exhaust every single opportunity to prioritise building on brownfield land. How can we teach our children to recycle plastic bags from a supermarket and yet let an algorithm, mutant or otherwise, dictate that we bulldoze by numbers through ancient fields, hedgerows, water meadows and woodland while land capable of reuse stands idle? Every local planning authority now has a brownfield register, which in 2019 showed that there was enough suitable brownfield land to build more than 1 million homes. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a “brownfield first” policy, although we should give this teeth by supporting the call from CPRE to require local authorities to write these numbers into their plans as delivered before considering any greenfield sites.
Even in West Sussex, we do not have to look far. In my constituency of Arundel and South Downs, the Shoreham cement works sits on a 44-acre site on the Steyning Road near Upper Beeding. It should be the perfect showcase of an environmentally friendly, multi-use redevelopment of a brownfield site. It could easily provide more than 2,000 quality apartment homes for a mixed community of downsizers and first timers, which is precisely where the gap in the market exists. But it is an eyesore that has been derelict for over 20 years. Despite—or perhaps even because of—many layers of government coming up with their own visions for the site, nothing has happened, and the site is not even being considered within the local plan, while untouched green fields are.
The Government are spending £400 million to support house building on brownfield land, but why is that money only available for mayoral authorities? If it is good policy—and it absolutely is—then let us make those brownfield moneys available for all. In respect of this particular site, I would be grateful if the Minister and his officials would agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to see what might be done to move forward.
Thirdly, we should be looking to do more in the centres of our great urban cities, particularly London. Our great capital city is a magnet for talent internally and externally. It is the closest we have got to a city that never sleeps—young, optimistic and diverse; the very epitome of a thriving urban centre. But it is becalmed, challenged by crime, closed roads, closed bridges, congestion and now covid. It is no wonder that the August survey by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors saw 93% of businesses expecting to reduce their space requirement over the next two years, or that PricewaterhouseCoopers, Linklaters, Schroders, Facebook and many others are all planning for their London-based staff to work from home.
As well as being overdue fresh leadership, London is now badly in need of a new renaissance. Let us take its now hollow core and transform it into the world’s greatest live-work city. London is a city whose centre was razed by the great fire of London and then again by the blitz but in each case was built back better than before. Let us see commercial to residential conversions on a grand scale, building up not out, vertical farming, ubiquitous wireless connectivity, hydrogen river boats shuttling up and down the Thames—and all building on the abundance of existing infrastructure and services that development elsewhere can never tap into, such as world-class teaching hospitals, universities and cultural institutions. I put it to the Minister that this is no time to give up on our urban areas, and London is just one. Exactly the same opportunity exists for Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff and all our great historic urban centres.
Fourthly, we should acknowledge the special quality of dark skies and use the next draft of the national planning policy framework to preserve and restore the ability of future generations to connect with our universe by being able to see the milky way on a dark night. The most recent British Astronomical Association survey revealed that 61% of people live in areas with severe light pollution, meaning that they can count fewer than 10 stars in the night sky. This is a real opportunity and costs us nothing to achieve.
Fifthly, we must retain confidence in the fairness of the planning system by ensuring that there is one common and equitable set of rules for all. That means not discriminating in land supply between permanent and nomadic residents, which I know causes a great deal of concern to my local councils.
Finally, I make a personal plea to the Minister to give more support to community land trusts, which are one of the best solutions to providing genuinely affordable homes for truly local people. Projects are being pursued at the moment in Arundel, Angmering, Barnham and Eastergate, Pulborough, Slindon and Steyning, each of which I look forward to supporting all the way to their completion.
I ought to conclude and allow my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this right, and it is vital that we do. This is not about today, but about tomorrow—the future that we want for our children and grandchildren. As I said at the beginning, I am optimistic about the future. I am encouraged that this is a consultation, and I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister have already said that they are open to making changes. Nature has bequeathed us a unique inheritance on to which our forefathers built thriving towns and great enterprising cities while preserving a tapestry of villages, fields and woodlands. We must not preserve it in aspic, but neither must we replace the species-rich ancient countryside and dark skies of West Sussex at risk from overdevelopment.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), a constituency neighbour, on securing this debate, which is of such importance. Indeed, no fewer than six of the eight West Sussex Members are present in the Chamber.
I was disappointed earlier in the Session when I missed my hon. Friend’s maiden speech, but I feel we have almost been treated to a rerun of it this evening, such has been the panoply of the tour around the wonderful constituency of Arundel and South Downs, which forms the heart of West Sussex, and I have actually learned quite a lot, despite representing the neighbouring constituency for 23 years, not least how close we are to the greater mouse-eared bat and how endangered they are, and I shall go and find some.
Tim Loughton
It is; yes, indeed.
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s complete horror at what he refers to, appropriately, as the mutant algorithm that may be responsible in the future for the level and type of developments across our country, which will have particular impact on parts of West Sussex, and I want to talk about my constituency, the coastal part of West Sussex, and why we are particularly fearful of what might happen if some of the measures that have been promulgated in the White Paper go ahead.
Adur, which forms two-thirds of my constituency, is one of the smaller district council areas in the country and is boarded to the north by the south downs national park, subject to high protection, and the coast to the south; it is an urban coastal strip. About 52% of the land space of Adur District Council falls within the national park, so is not under the planning authority of Adur planning authority and is subject to greater protections than the ordinary district area. Instantly, that district has lost more than half of its land space, on which it has no control over development.
Within the district we have England’s largest village, Lancing. It is technically a village although it has over 21,000 residents, and it is the largest part of Adur. We also have the oldest commercial airport in the country, Shoreham airport, which has been there since 1911—although a few people still complain about the noise of the planes, even though the houses were built long after the airport was put there. Shoreham harbour is the closest cross-channel port to London, and we have the original Hollywood, film studios, as were, on Shoreham beach. All those spaces are threatened, and would certainly be threatened if we changed our planning policies.
I am a veteran of the local plans. Adur came up with various versions of its local plan almost 10 years ago. I attended countless meetings, held meetings, and made sure everybody was consulted, and it was a very thorough consultation. Because of the unique circumstances of Adur—we cannot develop in the national park, because Shoreham harbour is a separate brownfield zone and we cannot build out on the sea as we lack the infrastructure to link up the houses—we have a particular problem. If we do not have the roads, people cannot get in and out of the houses easily, regardless of how smart the new developments might be. The local council, with my support and that of local people, argued a strong case, and in the end the planning inspector accepted a target that was about two thirds of the original target that we had been told we would have to take in Adur, recognising the special circumstances and appreciating how the case had been argued. The local plans of Mid Sussex to the north and Arun to the west were rejected and they had to come up with greater numbers, but our special circumstances were recognised.
I am fearful that all that hard work that made the case and gave us stretching, challenging housing figures that we would have to produce up to 2031, on which a good start has been made, will be put at risk if all of a sudden we have a completely different planning strategy. I will certainly ask the Minister to comment on what will be the future of the already agreed local plans, in place up to 2031, if these new changes come in. Will all of that work have been in vain, with those areas that we protected now being fair game for developers?
Shoreham airport is one of the few green spaces that we have left. Many developers have eyed it up over many years, and various people have bought Shoreham airport on the basis that they might be able to develop it. If so, we would lose an important part of the local scene and an historic building.
Shoreham harbour was the largest brownfield site in the south-east of England. The heavy goods and imports warehouse and everything have gradually disappeared over the years and are now being replaced by a large developments of—mostly—flats. The latest development is of some 500 flats on the waterside. It is a great place to have a flat in a new development—until anyone tries to get to it, because the road has not changed. The A259, an already congested road with already worryingly high air pollution levels cannot be expanded, and yet, within the next few years, that development of 500 flats will be just one of many thousands of new dwellings on the north side of Shoreham harbour. On the south side of Shoreham harbour, the number of residences has more than doubled in my time as the Member of Parliament and yet there is just one road onto the spit of land that is Shoreham beach.
We have already been developing brownfield sites, and there are very few left. A planning application is in to convert a series of business premises on Lancing business park—the second largest business park in the whole of West Sussex and one that is extraordinarily successful, employing about 3,200 people across 230 businesses, with world-class companies and with 99% occupancy, the last I heard—into 80 residences. We are desperately short of business space—particularly good-quality business space—within the Adur district, and now, because of permitted development rights, there is a strong chance that the application could go through, so we would lose space that we desperately need for businesses. It is not just a question of turning business space—brownfield space—into residences; we need that business space as well, and none of that will work without the infrastructure to link it all up.
I have often termed the A27 as the biggest car park in the south of England. My hon. Friend the Father of the House and I, and our predecessors before us, have campaigned for an enhancement—a bypass—to the road over many years, and we still have nothing. What we do have, because the local council had no choice under the likelihood of an appeal, is approval for a development of 600 houses. Worse still, to go with that, and in order to finance it, will be a brand-new IKEA store that is predicted to attract 2 million customer journeys a year on what is already the busiest road and one that is highly congested. That is the impact of development on local communities that are already struggling to find space for the activities they have.
All our schools are now full up. The last secondary school in my constituency that had been undersubscribed, Sir Robert Woodard Academy, has done fantastically well—it is no doubt well along the road to being an outstanding academy—and is, this year, for the first time in many years, oversubscribed. It is a great success, as is Shoreham Academy, which is oversubscribed too. All our secondary schools are oversubscribed. We desperately need new primary schools as well, but where do we put them? The space for them will be gobbled up by housing developments or businesses who desperately need to replace their space. It is all very well having a new, fast-track, slimline development planning scheme, but we have to be cognisant of the geography in which we place it, and there are certain parts of the country, of which I think my constituency is one—we are not just being nimbys—whose special circumstances mean that we cannot just plonk down a load of boxes in order to house people.
We absolutely need more housing for more people, but we also need appropriate housing. Many of these new developments, such as the lovely new flats going up along the waterside in Shoreham harbour, will be bought by people from out of the district, in many cases as second homes for people with boats. Local people and their children will be priced out of their own areas, where they grew up, because of property prices, not least because of the drift of people moving out of Brighton, as property prices there almost mirror London prices, and gradually moving along the coast to Shoreham, Worthing and beyond. We are therefore pricing out and taking away the space for local people who have grown up in the area with their families.
There is also an important issue affecting coastal constituencies. West Sussex is a relatively affluent part of the world that is very rural in many parts—not in my constituency—and has pockets of deprivation. We also know from a big study last year that educational achievement is at least two points below the average for other parts of the country. We therefore face real challenges in coastal constituencies, yet we have been neglected in the whole of the south-east, particularly on the coast, over many years when it comes to infrastructure spending. We are expected to provide the houses—and the taxes—but we do not get the infrastructure to go with that to make them viable for the people who already live there and those who understandably want to move into the area.
Of course we need more development, and we desperately need more housing—there are too many people on housing waiting lists—but we cannot use an algorithm that is completely blind to the sorts of local geographical and social circumstances that I have mentioned to come up with figures that might add up in Whitehall, but absolutely do not add up in places such as Adur. Just in the last week, the local council made an announcement, which I absolutely support, about an area of 70 acres called New Salts farm, which borders the airport and which had been speculatively bought—first by Wimpey homes and then by a housing association, on the basis that it could develop it into a lot of houses—but it was specifically taken out of the local plan because it was not seen as suitable for development. It is on a floodplain, it is close to the sea and it is a congested area. I am glad to say that the local council has bought that stretch of land and will use it as an environmental area for the use and enjoyment of the local population—a green lung of the kind that we desperately need in our area.
That is a fantastic scheme, and I applaud Adur Council for taking that initiative. However, I hope that the sorts of changes now being looked at will not mean that a developer can come in and say, “No, we’re going to develop that land,” and force Adur to give up its ambitions for that and other similar areas—for the very few open spaces that we still have left. It is really important that any algorithm respects, appreciates and recognises the local environment and the needs of local people, because their work-life balance is much more important than an algorithm. As we know, once we lose those spaces, we do not get them back.
I hope the Minister will look carefully at this. Many colleagues on this side of the House who represent constituencies that have large protected areas in them and are bounded by the coast, or by national park areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty or whatever, will be looking closely at how any changes in the planning system will impact on us, because we have done our bit. We have taken a lot of development, and a lot of people are feeling rather put upon. They are feeling that the local environment has got a bit too cosy, and they will take it, but they will not take a great deal more. Let us not ruin it simply because we have not thought this through. Let us remember that, at the end of the day, we are beholden to our constituents and our local communities, and they expect us, and certainly our party, to protect and enhance them, not to cover them in concrete.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) that I am glad he secured this debate? I fear the penalty may be that he will be taken into Government: either made a Whip to keep him quiet or a Minister to answer devastating points such as he has made today. I congratulate him, as I congratulate the four of the eight West Sussex MPs who have become Ministers, one of whom has become a Minister again: my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin). Those of us who are not Ministers—my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Arundel and South Downs and I—have to provide the balance, and we can encourage Government to pay attention.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, who very kindly looked after me for some years when he was my Whip: could he please send the Secretary of State to West Sussex and bring the Prime Minister with him, first of all to learn that in Sussex we will not be druv—that means treat us with respect and treat our area with respect—and, secondly, to explain where the land is going to come from for development between the South Downs national park and the coast?
If we take the borough of Worthing, which makes up two thirds of my constituency, the council is proposing to have 200 homes built on Union Place, where the old police station was, opposite the old Conservative office, and over 300 homes, if things go right, at Teville Gate by the station. In the long-term plan, there were proposals for over 700 homes in West Durrington, below the national park, and those have basically been built. There are many other smaller schemes coming forward, including the Aquarena site, where a building application for 21 storeys was rightly refused, and 18 storeys was accepted—still, I think, too high.
I would say to the Minister that if he looks at St Andrews Gardens off Church Road in Tarring, an area where there is no residential building of more than three storeys, there was a proposal by some landlords—freeholders—to stick on an extra floor. The council rightly turned it down, the inspector came along and turned it down in even more firm language, and what happened when people read the Government’s proposals for planning? There is a pre-application now in at the council that is putting people up in arms. People do not vote in my constituency to have a Government proposal misinterpreted and then have everything in that particular ward wrecked, where there are all sorts of other problems. But the main problem, I think, is that it is out of scale for the local area. My constituents, Jon and Michelle Mayes, have written to me to say on the original St Andrews Gardens that, although the people there are nice, the homes are out of place in that particular area. Why should that be coming forward again?
On Thursday, I shall go to celebrate the change of name of Chatsmore Catholic High School to the St Oscar Romero Catholic School. If the Minister and the Secretary of State put Chatsmore in a Google Earth search, they will find that that school, by the railway line, is between the north and south Goring gap—the green fields between Goring in Worthing, Goring-by-Sea and Ferring in the Arun District Council. Persimmon has put in an application for over 450 homes that will totally change its character. Were green belt to spread further than London and Oxford, there would be a green belt around Worthing that would certainly include the north and south Goring gaps, one of which includes Chatsmore Farm to the north, just below the A259.
I would say to the Minister that if he has a chance of looking up Chatsmore on Google Earth, he will see the problem. Where there is an open field now, that is where Persimmon plans or hopes to get approval. It is not in the Worthing Borough Council plan and it is not in any sensible plan. As a shareholder in Persimmon, I can say to the board, “If I get a chance, I’ll come to the AGM”—perhaps I can get many other people to buy one share; I have got more than one share in my private pension—“and say, ‘Could they please pay attention to the shareholders, but even more to the nature of our countryside running down to the coast from the national park?’”
I hope that when we look at the planning proposals, we can accept where it is possible acceptably to have homes, even though there may be local objection, but we should not have homes where it is wrong. The difference between being right and being wrong is even more important than between being right and being left. Having said that, I say to my local Labour party in Worthing West, which for a long time was chaired by Ed Miller, who was secretary of the Ferring Conservation Group, “I will back you all the way. You may have tried the best you can at various elections to get me out, but between elections let us work together to protect the Goring gap.” I say the same thing to the Liberal councillors and others involved in Tarring to protect St Andrews Gardens and the rest of Tarring as well.
This is a cross-party issue. If the Government get it right, they will get more homes—acceptable homes. If they get it wrong, I do not think they will be respected by the people of all parties who want to have a proper planning system that delivers new homes at affordable prices to a range of people who otherwise would find themselves suffering from housing stress. Do not do it at the expense of a ward such as Tarring. Do not do it at the expense of those who want to protect the Goring gap, where the Goring and Ilex Conservation Group unite with the Ferring Conservation Group, and I back them all the way.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) on what I think we all agree was a finely crafted and balanced speech. I congratulate him on securing the debate and also on securing the interests of other hon. and right hon. Members. I note in particular the as ever eloquent speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who made very kind remarks—at least about me.
I also note the interest my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has secured from other colleagues. I see around us my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), as well as a few interlopers from a little further afield in Berkshire, Hampshire and Leicestershire: my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Harborough (Neil O'Brien). I am very pleased they have made the time to attend this debate.
I am particularly interested in the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs in housing and planning matters, and I am pleased to speak on some of the issues that he and others have raised this evening. He drew particular attention to the calculation for local housing need, as did others, and I think it is worth me spending a minute before I go into the detail of my speech just to remind the House of the history of the local housing need calculation, which began some six or seven years ago. From memory, it had to be revised in about 2017 to look more closely at households. Due to the challenges there have been, we committed earlier this year to revisit it with a consultation yet again. That is why the consultation is taking place now. We should disaggregate that from the consultation that has taken place on our wider planning reforms in the planning White Paper, but I entirely understand why my hon. Friend and others have wished to raise the local housing need calculation.
The local housing need calculation is driven, as properly it should be, primarily on the question of affordability. There are places in our country where affordability is low and prices are high—sometimes income is low, too—and in those places it is difficult for people, particularly local people, as mentioned by some of my hon. Friends, to find accommodation locally. We must not lose sight of the other levers that affect the local housing need calculation: the importance of levelling up and improving stock in those parts of our country that most need it; and, the importance of focusing on more brownfield development and the better use of our town centres. We are mindful of those considerations, and we will consider them carefully and closely as a result of the consultation and the submissions made to it.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the planning White Paper and our proposed planning reforms. I want to take this opportunity to reassure him and other Members not least about our very real aspiration to leave the environment better than we found it as a result of the White Paper. It is clear that things have to change, because under the last Labour Government, house building fell to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s. That is why this Government have delivered more than 1.5 million additional homes since 2010 as part of our commitment to reverse that trend. We built more than 241,000 in England last year alone, and we can be rightly proud of these achievements, yet despite this progress, we are still not building enough homes. That is why we made a manifesto commitment to build more.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Would the Minister then consider that maybe the reason we have done so well in West Sussex and other parts of England since we have been in office is that we have local plans in place delivering new houses, and that maybe our focus should be on areas such as Eastleigh, part of which I represent, that do not have a local plan, and on the 1 million or so planning permissions that have been granted but not built? Maybe if we focused on those two, we would continue to make the progress that he has rightly celebrated at the Dispatch Box.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. I will not make specific reference to any particular local plan, but it is worth noting that the consolidated local plans, as they are constituted, provide for only 180,000 new homes, which is well below our commitment to build 300,000 new homes a year by the middle of this decade, and below the number that were produced last year. It is for that very reason that we are introducing, as defined in our White Paper, the sorts of reforms that we believe will allow for more building in the right places, in the right style and to the right standard that people want.
Our vision for the future of planning and house building is bold and ambitious and it is set out in our White Paper, “Planning for the Future”. Its purposes are essential. It proposes important changes to the focus and processes of planning to secure better outcomes in terms of land for homes, beauty and environmental quality. Simplifying the role of local plans will be a big part of this. It will be easier to identify areas suitable for housing development and for renewal, and areas that should be protected. These changes will transform a system that has long been criticised as being too slow to provide housing for families, key workers and young people, and too weak in getting developers to pay their fair share towards supporting infrastructure such as schools, roads and clinics. Our reforms will provide for more building on brownfield land, which my hon. Friend and others have mentioned, while valuing green spaces will be important and will continue to be protected. The consultation on the White Paper runs until 29 October 2020, and I hope that all our constituents will take the opportunity to engage in that process.
Our national housing challenge also requires powerful local responses, because local authorities have a key role to play. It is reasonable to expect them to meet their share of the nation’s future housing needs. That is why we ask authorities to plan to meet the full housing need of their communities, to identify enough land to meet that need and to take an active role in delivering homes in their areas. Although the presumption in favour of sustainable development may apply where an authority cannot identify sufficient land for housing or where delivery falls below a certain level, we are clear—crystal clear—that decisions will still need to be made in the light of all the policies in our national planning policy framework. That includes policies that seek to protect an area from unwanted developments, such as the strong protections for the South Downs National Park.
Local and neighbourhood plans will also play a key role as they have a number of important functions, including setting out what development an area needs, ensuring that it is supported with the right infrastructure and, crucially, ensuring that local decisions remain at the heart of the planning system. Our proposal for protecting areas in local plans in “Planning for the future” would justify more stringent development controls to ensure sustainability in areas subject to significant flood risk or other environmental factors, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs alluded. Taken together, local and neighbourhood plans help ensure that developments that are planned and sustainable, not sporadic and speculative, are developed. I am pleased that 90% of councils have adopted a local plan—one or two still have not, as has been mentioned by some of our colleagues. That is compared with just 17% in 2010. I am delighted that there have now been more than 900 successful neighbourhood planning referendums across England. I am certainly encouraged by the work being undertaken by the communities in West Sussex to update their local plans and drive forward the number of adopted neighbourhood plans in the area.
As we move to transform our planning system, we are looking carefully at those areas that have long been a source of local objections. This evening, I will touch on just three: the need to protect the environment; a lack of critical infrastructure; and the need for high quality design. The first, environmental protection, is a subject close to all our hearts. A number of Members have mentioned it. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. and right hon. Friends that our reforms will not be at the expense of our natural environment. Through our NPPF, we have made it clear that planning policies and decisions should minimise the effects on biodiversity of developments and provide net gains. That means opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be sought, especially where that can be secured and offer secure, measurable net gains for biodiversity, but we also want to go further, which is why, in our forthcoming Environment Bill, we will make biodiversity improvements mandatory for a range of development, including house building.
This will ensure that future planning applications include an assessment of the existing biodiversity quality of land and details of the improvements that are proposed to be made. The NPPF also makes it clear that planning policies should encourage the take-up and prioritisation of suitable brownfield land, especially for new homes. All authorities now publish a local register of brownfield land suitable for housing, bringing thousands of hectares of developable land to the attention of house builders. Our brownfield remediation fund announced at the Budget, which provided £400 million for brownfield development—initially, those proposals were focused on mayoral combined authorities—has demonstrated a very fat pipeline of brownfield sites. I look forward to more being brought forward and other opportunities that we can work together to develop, because I want to underline today that planning permission for major development in areas like the South Downs national park should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances and where development is shown to be in the public interest.
Another source of local objections is the lack of critical infrastructure, and that the infrastructure comes too little or too late. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, among others. That is why we committed in our manifesto to amend planning rules, so that infrastructure comes before people move into their homes. As a part of that, we are investing £10 billion through the single housing infrastructure fund to provide the infrastructure to support new homes, so that infrastructure comes forward quickly and appropriately. Moreover, we have made £5.5 billion available through the housing infrastructure fund to provide the infrastructure to unlock up to 650,000 homes in areas of greatest need. We are consulting on a new uniform flat-rate infrastructure levy, consolidating existing developer contribution mechanisms—the community infrastructure levy or section 106—to deliver the local infrastructure needed to support people and places. It is a truly radical reform, simplifying processes while making sure developers pay their way.
Finally, we know how important high quality design is to communities. Often it is the most tangible thing people see when they see developments going up around them. We know that people will be less likely to oppose new development if the quality of the local area is improved at the same time. Reflecting the recent report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, our reform proposals make beautiful places a central objective for planning. We intend to create a fast-track system for beautiful buildings, with local design guidance to help developers build and preserve beautiful communities. At its heart will be effective community engagement, because community input at this stage of preparing plans and design codes will give local people real influence over the location and the design of new developments, rather than having to react to unexpected planning applications. I want planning to be proactive, to be strategic, to be up-front, not tactical, not reactive, not rearguard as it all too often is at present and has been for too long.
In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs for convening us on this important topic and allowing so many Members of the House to make eloquent speeches or contributions. I have listened keenly to those distinguished contributions tonight. I believe we all recognise the crucial need for homes for young people in West Sussex and across the country: homes in sustainable and well-designed communities, homes with the infrastructure that is ready to go, and homes that ensure our beautiful countryside and heritage all around the country—in Staffordshire, of course, but in West Sussex in particular—is protected, preserved and enriched in the decades to come. I am confident that together we can achieve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Chris Elmore |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dineage (Gosport) | Caroline Nokes |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) | Gagan Mohindra |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) | Alistair Carmichael |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) | Mark Fletcher |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) | Alistair Carmichael |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Mary Kelly Foy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) | David Rutley |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) | Patrick Grady |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) | Charlotte Nichols |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
DRAFT ELECTRICITY AND GAS ETC. (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
DRAFT ELECTRICITY AND GAS (INTERNAL MARKETS AND NETWORK CODES) (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Everybody is socially distanced. If anybody has notes, can they please email them to Hansard rather than hand them to Hansard? I call the Minister to move the first motion and to speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is a pleasure to open this short debate—I hope it will be short, anyway—under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The regulations were laid before the House on 22 June and 6 July respectively. When the transition period ends, as members of the Committee know, direct EU legislation and EU-derived domestic legislation that form part of the legal framework governing our energy markets will be incorporated into domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. These two SIs form part of my Department’s work to ensure that the UK’s energy legislation continues to function smoothly after the end of the transition period at the end of this year. The SIs ensure that the energy markets will be smoothly managed in the event that the UK does not reach an agreement or should the agreement that we do reach not cover the relevant policy area.
The first SI relates to what was done in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy before the withdrawal agreement was agreed. Prior to the UK’s departure from the EU, BEIS laid several SIs that prepared for the eventuality that we would not achieve a withdrawal agreement. Members will have noticed that, since the SIs were made, the UK has left the EU on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, so those now have to be amended to take account of the fact that we have a withdrawal agreement.
The first SI makes consequential changes to reflect new legislation that has come into force since the original SIs were made. An example of where the first SI amends the original SIs is that we can now refer to electricity regulation, and that is now made consequential on the gas directive, which has also been changed as a consequence of the past two years. The SI also amends the original SIs with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol, which was attached, as we all remember, to the withdrawal agreement. The original SIs governing this space were made in 2019 before the withdrawal agreement was signed and agreed, and therefore the amendments in this SI fix the deficiencies that resulted from the fact that the original SIs were made on a UK-wide basis. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, however, EU legislation that applies in respect of the wholesale energy market will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the transition period, and therefore the first SI removes provisions that were originally made relating to Northern Ireland that are no longer relevant because we have a withdrawal agreement and also the Northern Ireland protocol.
Finally, the SIs will now take effect from the implementation period completion day rather than exit day. Consequently, this SI updates the references that were previously made in the old SI. It essentially takes into account the fact that we have a withdrawal agreement and amends the SIs that were laid before the withdrawal agreement was signed up to.
The second SI relates to the period after the end of the transition period and reflects the fact that, since we laid the previous SIs in 2019, new EU legislation has come into effect. It makes amendments and revocations to the following new pieces of EU legislation: the electricity regulation and three of the electricity network codes. That new EU legislation will become retained EU law at the end of the transition period through the withdrawal agreement. Deficiencies in the legislation therefore need to be fixed so that we can make the regime workable after the end of the transition period. The SI also revokes the agency regulation, as it includes obligations that would be inappropriate and would not make sense after the end of the transition period, because Great Britain will no longer be a member of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.
By amending existing rules to ensure that they operate effectively in domestic law and amending provisions that will no longer be relevant after the transition period, the two SIs will maintain the operability and integrity of the UK energy market and UK energy legislation. They will provide maximum certainty for businesses and continuity for market participants.
In conclusion, the regulations are an entirely appropriate use of the powers of the withdrawal Act, which are designed to support a well-functioning, competitive and resilient energy system for consumers. They also provide clarity about the role and functions of UK bodies and market participants after the transition period ends on 31 December. As a consequence, I commend them to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I rise to tell the Committee, in the first instance, that we do not think the proposals are particularly contentious and that we will, therefore, not seek to divide the Committee—although someone might say that, even if we did, we would not get very far, because of who is present. Having said that, I would like to seek a little elucidation from the Minister about certain aspects of the SIs, particularly so that it is on the record. That elucidation relates to slightly separate issues within the two SIs, so I will talk about them separately.
As the Minister said, one SI—the Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—essentially deals with common standards for internal markets and network codes. In the event of no further agreement being reached between the UK and the EU on these matters—or, indeed, of agreements not extending to this area—amendments will be made to allow those common standards and common code arrangements to be effectively maintained, which is important. We have an intricate network of trading arrangements on energy with European Union member states, most notably through both gas and electric interconnectors, and it is important that there are common standards on both ends and that the codes by which that trade takes place are also compatible with each other over the period. This is not an insignificant thing that is happening in this SI as far as our future arrangements are concerned.
The Minister did not say what the future agreements are that could be reached before IP date that could avoid these regulations taking place. I must say I am a little puzzled, because the explanatory memorandum states:
“This instrument is one of several statutory instruments required to ensure that legislation governing the energy system in Great Britain (‘GB’) will function effectively if at the end of the implementation period…the UK does not reach a further agreement with the European Union…or if the agreement reached does not cover the relevant policy area.”
If we reach further agreement before the IP date, one might assume from that that the regulations that presently exist would effectively continue, or continue in similar form.
If, on the other hand, an agreement is not reached, it appears that what is being put forward in this SI are measures that will unilaterally do that anyway—that is, it will introduce measures for harmonisation of transfer arrangements and codes to allow that trade to continue. I am sure the Minister will be able to explain this to my satisfaction, but I am not sure whether the difference that there might be, in terms of what we are about to agree this afternoon in the event of no agreement being reached, is significant in terms of the possibility of agreement being reached, if we are able to find out exactly what agreement could be reached in order to continue with arrangements as they are at the moment.
Later on, the explanatory memorandum states that if these measures are not agreed, there could be problems and that this
“uncertainty could result in an increase in wholesale prices.”
I am not quite sure why an agreement that makes no great difference between what is there now if a deal is reached and what we are putting in place here to ensure harmonisation and the continuance of trade would increase wholesale prices. Is it simply because of the uncertainty that would arise if there is no final elucidation on these matters, or is there anything in the wording of any change that might cause those wholesale prices to rise? I am not clear. I do not have the answers to this—it is not a trick question, but a request for some elucidation about what the effect of doing nothing today would be if an agreement is either reached or, alternatively, not reached by IP date. Indeed, if no agreement is reached, would there, for example, be an imbalance in trading arrangements that would exacerbate arbitrage arrangements, with the result that wholesale prices might rise? If, on the other hand, we had an agreement that would not do that, or, alternatively, we had these measures in place, that additional arbitrage probably would not arise in the first place.
The second statutory instrument that we are looking at are the draft Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. As the Minister has mentioned, it looks rather more straightforward than the first one, in that it essentially, for future reference, proofs legislation in the correct way—that is, it substitutes, in the main, the IP date for the exit date so far as the legislation is concerned. So far, so good. However, the SI does not, in the main, extend to Northern Ireland. Indeed, Northern Ireland is specifically left out. Again, our reliable explanatory notes tell us that this might be useful for the Northern Ireland Executive at a later date—if they do not organise things properly in Northern Ireland, they can refer to the SI in their domestic legislation in the future. That is significant because, unlike Great Britain, Northern Ireland has a grid system and an internal energy market system that are wholly integrated with the Republic of Ireland. It is therefore essential that there is harmonisation from day one, in order for what are essentially internal systems within the island of Ireland to work well.
I am slightly surprised that that section of the SI appears to have been left for possible measures at a later date. Given the importance of harmonisation from the start, I would have thought that it would be something that we should, in the first instance, look at here. I am somewhat persuaded in that view by information that is generally known: there are, in fact, two interconnectors between Great Britain and the island of Ireland. One goes to Larne in Northern Ireland; the other goes between Wales and the Republic. We could be faced with the possibility that what is essentially an internal interconnector within the UK is not harmonised, whereas an external interconnector between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is harmonised. That would, in turn, make a nonsense of the internal market and the single arrangements for the grid within the island of Ireland as a whole.
Does the Minister have any thoughts on those potential problems? Perhaps he does not consider them as potential problems at all and he can give me assurances that these matters have been thought out—that there is an agreement that will sort them out or that the legislation in front of us can fully take account of the issues to which I have given some consideration in this afternoon’s debate.
The Chair
There appear to be no other Members of the Committee wishing to take part in the debate, so I ask the Minister to respond.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased to respond to the hon. Gentleman, whose diligence in these matters is always to be commended, but I feel that there is a slight misapprehension about the force of the two SIs. As I described in my opening remarks, the whole point of the first SI is that it amends SIs that were laid before the withdrawal agreement was signed. Those SIs reflected, or tried to describe, the arrangements in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will know, as will other Members of the Committee, that at least a third of the withdrawal agreement related to the Northern Ireland protocol. I know that, because I was the Minister on the relevant Bill, but I failed to get the Bill through, as you, Ms Elliott, will remember. As the withdrawal agreement has come through, the SIs that we laid before its agreement are essentially redundant.
The first SI that we are debating essentially amends those SIs in the light of the fact that we have a withdrawal agreement and that the agreement has a Northern Ireland protocol attached to it, which determines many of these issues in relation to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the second SI does not deal directly with the Northern Ireland issue. However, what has happened since then is that we have got a Northern Ireland Government. We all know—this was an issue that we have talked about at length, and I think that he and I debated it—that the single electricity market, or SEM, is what largely determines these issues on the island of Ireland. The workings of the SEM have been the subject of other SIs, as both he and I know well.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, it is not true to say that if we do not legislate in this way and there is not an agreement, the status quo just carries on. It does not just carry on, because, as I have said, the SIs have been superseded by the withdrawal agreement. In a way, this measure is a sort of safety blanket. We fully expect that there will be a deal, and that when there is a deal, we will have to reflect the institutions and how the energy market works according to that future deal, whenever it arrives and whatever its details are, when they are fleshed out. This measure is essentially just a safety blanket. It is not true to say that if we do nothing, we can simply carry on as before.
Dr Whitehead
I accept, of course, that it would not just be a case of status quo. Nevertheless, there is a question, in my mind at least: within a wider and overall deal, what would a specific deal on energy markets and energy transmission consist of? Does the Minister have information on that, with which he can reassure us this afternoon?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It would be quite an extraordinary ask, given that the negotiations are ongoing, for me to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what the details of those negotiations are. He will understand—this is public knowledge—that we hope to be part of or have a stand-alone emissions trading scheme, which is related to the EU’s ETS. However, as I have said, that is exactly the meat of the negotiations that are taking place, and it would be extraordinary for me in this public forum to say what the outcome of those negotiations will be.
If I may, and without further ado, I will say a couple of words in conclusion. The Government are committed to achieving a smooth end to the transition period so that our energy system operates with continuity and certainty. We confidently believe that these regulations will help to accomplish that in the event—the regrettable event—of there being no further agreement. We think that there will be an agreement, but should there not be one, these SIs will be very useful, because they will ensure continuity for our energy system, they will remove outdated references to legislation that no longer exists and that is not relevant, given the passing of the withdrawal agreement, and, as a consequence, they will provide more certainty for market participants. On that basis, I am pleased to commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ELECTRICITY AND GAS (INTERNAL MARKETS AND NETWORK CODES) (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Kwasi Kwarteng.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No.3) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 750).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, for what I believe is your first time in the Chair.
The regulations we are discussing came into force on 18 July. They were necessary to give effect to the announcement made on 3 July by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, setting out the Government’s goal to enable as many people as possible to live their lives as normally and as safely as possible. To achieve that, the Prime Minister set out the need to move away from blanket national measures towards targeted local measures.
I am aware that there are concerns in Parliament about allowing for timely scrutiny of regulations that have been laid and made in response to the public health emergency caused by coronavirus—in particular about the timing of debates—as I am sure I will hear again from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. We have listened to those concerns and have endeavoured to hold this debate as early as possible after laying the regulations, taking the summer recess into account.
Three main activities are being undertaken to support the shift in focus to managing localised outbreaks through proportionate local responses. First, local authorities have now drafted local outbreak management plans, which set out how they will deal with outbreaks in their local areas. Secondly, we have published the contain framework, which sets out national expectations about how and when upper-tier local authorities should take community protection actions to manage the transmission of covid-19. Thirdly, open businesses and venues have been asked to assist the NHS test and trace service by keeping a temporary 21-day record of their customers and visitors, which will help to contain outbreaks.
Local authorities have specific legal powers under existing public health, environmental health and health and safety laws. Those powers apply under a patchwork of triggers or, in some cases, require an application to the magistrate, which obviously leads to some delay before they can be enforced. They are not sufficient to enable local authorities to implement fully the community protections set out in the contain framework, or to do so with the speed needed to manage an outbreak effectively.
Although we expect local authorities to work on the basis of consent within local communities, there may none the less be situations in which local restrictive measures need to be put in place to contain the virus. We want to ensure that a uniform and sufficient suite of powers exists to enable local decision makers to take action locally and promptly, enabling the mitigation of local covid-19 outbreaks through a new and consistent set of regulations.
The Government’s ambition is to empower upper-tier local authorities to be able to implement targeted restrictions so that the need for the Government to impose more serious restrictions is reduced. Before these local intervention regulations came into force, local authorities did not have the power to impose fully the community protection actions set out in the contain framework. As a result, we introduced the regulations to enable local decision makers to take prompt and appropriate action.
The powers in the regulations are exercisable by upper-tier local authorities in England. A local authority may give directions imposing prohibitions, requirements or restrictions: in regulation 4, relating to individual premises; in regulation 5, to events; and in regulation 6, to outdoor public places. Before giving a direction, the local authority must deem that there is a serious and imminent threat to public health, and that giving direction is necessary and proportionate to control the incidence or further spread of coronavirus. In determining that, the local authority must pay due regard to any advice from its director of public health. Local authorities are supported in their decision making by guidance published alongside the regulations.
As Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend has the power to direct a local authority to use its powers under the regulations where he considers that the same criteria are met. Before doing so, he is required to consult with the chief medical officer or one of the deputy chief medical officers of the Department of Health and Social Care. To date, we have not had cause to issue such a direction to a local authority, but we have seen authorities moving swiftly to use their powers to protect their local populations.
There is a mandatory requirement for local authorities to review the continuing need for any directions given under these regulations every seven days. The regulations require that if, following the review, the local authority considers that any of the legal criteria to give the direction are no longer met, that local authority must revoke the direction and either not replace it, or replace it with a direction that does meet the necessary conditions. A similar duty applies to the Secretary of State, who must direct the local authority to revoke the direction if he considers that the restriction or requirement is no longer necessary. If my right hon. Friend directs a local authority to impose a direction, it is still for the local authority to terminate.
A local authority must notify the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable once it has given a direction under these regulations. To date, 61 such notifications have been received from 23 different local authorities. To manage cross-boundary impacts, the local authority must also provide neighbouring authorities with notice when these powers are exercised. Neighbouring authorities are required to consider whether they should also implement any measures under their own powers. If a local authority decides to give a direction, it must publish that direction in writing and provide it in writing to any person named in the direction. The local authority must also take reasonable steps to give advance notice to specified types of person when making each type of direction, and ensure that the direction is brought to their attention.
The regulations permit someone affected by the direction to appeal to a magistrates court or make representations to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State determines that the local authority should have exercised its powers in a different way, having regard to the required conditions, he will direct the local authority in question to amend. To date, one individual has made representations to the Secretary of State, who upheld the direction given by the local authority.
The enforcement regime is broadly based on the provisions set out in the national regulations. This includes the prohibition notices for businesses or fixed penalty notices issued by local authority or other officers if a direction is breached, or for obstruction of police or local authority officers. There is a ladder regime of increasing fines for each FPN, from £100 to £3,200. That ladder takes into account FPNs issued under other national and regional lockdown regulations.
Police will also have the power to direct an event that contravenes directions to stop, and to direct people to leave, or remove people from a relevant area if need be. With regard to public outdoor places, the police will have the power to take action when it is necessary to do so. This includes directing a person to leave a restricted area, or removing them if need be. Offences are created for breaching a direction, obstructing a police or local authority officer, and failing to comply with a reasonable instruction or prohibition notice given under the regulations. Offences are punishable on a summary conviction by a fine. These regulations have their own six-month sunset clause, separate from all other regulations, and so will expire at the end of 17 January 2021.
Where are we now? Coronavirus is the biggest challenge that the UK has faced in decades. The resilience and fortitude of the British people in complying with the national lockdown that was introduced in March has been a truly national effort, and something we can all be proud of. It is, of course, welcome that we have been able to start easing the national restrictions in line with the road map, reflecting the continued decline in daily death rates and the downgrading of the covid alert level from 4 to 3. But we always knew that in reality the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was likely that infection would rise in particular areas and workplaces, which we have seen, and we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to those outbreaks.
We are now working closely with local authorities and at a national level to ensure we have the data and analytical capability to spot potential outbreaks quickly. We have and will continue to develop a range of tools and powers that will allow us to respond effectively and proportionately. These regulations have demonstrated our willingness to empower local authorities and take action where needed.
I am really grateful to all parliamentarians for their continuing engagement in this challenging process and their valuable scrutiny of the regulations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I hope that your debut here is as memorable for you as it is for everyone else, and for all the right reasons.
I thank the Minister for her introduction. There was some acknowledgment that we are not yet out of the woods. Yesterday’s Government data showed the number of cases reported in the UK—2,988—was the highest on any single day since 22 May. That was a rise of 1,175 on the previous day. I understand that a similar figure of 2,948 cases has been reported on the Government website today. That trend is going in the wrong direction in terms of what we want to see.
I was surprised that we did not get a statement from the Secretary of State in the House on this today, although I understand he managed to put himself through the rough and tumble of an interview on “Newsbeat” earlier on. If the Minister can comment on the current position and, more importantly, on whether any additional measures are envisaged in relation to this recent rise, I would be grateful if she would set those out in her response. Indeed, if she anticipates a statement from the Secretary of State to the House, I would be grateful if she would indicate that that is the case.
As the Minister said, the regulations came into force on 18 July and give local authorities additional legal powers to those found under public health, environmental health, and health and safety legislation, which enable them to fully implement whatever measures are needed to prevent, protect against, delay or control the incidence or spread of coronavirus in their own areas. As the Minister outlined, this new set of regulations is intended to provide powers to allow local authority decision makers to take action to mitigate against local covid-19 outbreaks, a recognition, perhaps belatedly, that local public health teams know their areas best and are best equipped to deal with local outbreaks.
There are, of course, broad and sweeping powers in these regulations. Everyone understands the enormity of the challenge this country faces. That is why these regulations and powers continue to be necessary. Since the first coronavirus regulations were laid on 10 February, nearly seven months ago, more than 50 different pieces of legislation, including many restricting aspects of our daily lives, including how we live, gather, work and travel, have been introduced. The British people have made enormous personal sacrifices to adhere to them, sometimes at great cost to themselves, their families, their loved ones, their colleagues and their employees.
As we know, even after the figures have been adjusted down, we still have over 41,000 people who have sadly lost their life to this virus. Each life lost is a tragedy and our thoughts remain with their friends and families. It is a measure of the pervasiveness of this virus that despite all the restrictions introduced, legislation passed and efforts made by all around the country we still have such a significant death toll.
As the Minister correctly said, we know that this is far from over. The virus has not gone away. In fact, as I mentioned, the situation appears to be deteriorating. It is clear that despite covid-19 remaining an ongoing threat to public health, we will require regulations to protect our citizens now and for the foreseeable future. Given the future outlook and the desire of Government to avoid another national lockdown, the regulations will allow local restrictions to be introduced. It is right that we look at the suite of powers made available to local authorities, but the powers available are only part of the story; how those powers are exercised and how local councils, businesses and individuals are supported also matter.
Therefore I will again raise our concern that, as in all previous debates on coronavirus regulations, we are debating regulations weeks after they have come into effect—more than six weeks later in this case, as these regulations came into force before the summer recess. As we have said many times, we of course accept that the initial regulations had to be introduced hurriedly, in response to the rising number of infections, but the House has been up and running for many months now, and with Members on both sides of this House and in the other place raising concerns about why time is not being provided to ensure that future changes are debated and therefore have democratic consent before they are introduced, we see no good reason why the Government continue to act in the way they do.
These regulations are too important to be dealt with as an afterthought. They demand full parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister gave assurances that the Government had listened to our concerns and indicated that time was being made to debate the regulations as soon as possible, but I still think that we are behind the curve and I ask her again to feed back to the people who make the decisions on when these matters are debated that we still do not believe that that is being done in a way that respects parliamentary scrutiny.
Equally, it remains unacceptable that we are debating further regulations without the full information regarding any assessment of their impact. Once again, all we have seen published alongside the regulations is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out and no regulatory impact assessment undertaken. All new regulations should involve advance warning to allow planning; they should also involve consultation with regions, local authorities and elected Mayors. These regulations provide local public health bodies with significant powers. It seems obvious that they would have a view on those powers, their scope and the resources that they might need to implement them, so it is disappointing to hear that the first time the Local Government Association saw the regulations was when they were published.
The way in which regulations are brought in matters. The Government should not announce changes or restrictions suddenly, with very little notice. It is fine to give local authorities these powers, but what assessment has been made of the financial resources that they may need to actually exercise them? We know that most local authorities, having already suffered years of central Government funding cuts, are struggling with their finances, and that the additional costs associated with covid-19 have not been met in full by Government, so what is the plan to provide assistance to a local authority that may find it necessary to issue dozens of notices in a short space of time? Issuing notices in itself takes some resource, but properly monitoring and enforcing the notices must put an extra burden on local authorities, for which they have not yet received funding, so what resources will the Minister make available in those circumstances?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. As I understand it, other countries such as Greece, which we were discussing in the Chamber a moment ago, have in place penalties that are much higher and much tougher. They seem to me much more ambitious about containing this disease in their communities. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that perhaps this Government lack the ambition to really get to grips with this?
Justin Madders
It is not a question of ambition; it is a question of trusting local government and giving it the resources to do the job that it is clearly the most suited, out of everyone in the country, to do. We absolutely can learn from other countries. There are many examples around the world of how different approaches have produced different results.
It is also worth noting that the fines under this regulation for an initial offence are pretty small. Although there is a multiplier effect, a business might decide that it is worth pursuing its activities until the fines reach a level at which that is no longer economic. We will have to see how that works in practice. As we have seen with other coronavirus regulations, the Government have stepped in to increase the fines through statutory instruments, so perhaps that will happen again if we see a problem with this regulation as well.
As I understand it, there is no statutory review clause for the regulations, so they will not even be reviewed at regular intervals. How can that be right? These are new and far-reaching regulations with potentially massive resource implications for local authorities. Although we know that any directions made by local authorities under the powers in this instrument must themselves be reviewed every seven days—a sensible measure that we support—any local restrictions must also have a clear evidence base and rationale behind them, and should be regularly reviewed. That in itself is resource-intensive activity and is not the same as the Government undertaking a detailed and thorough review of whether the regulations themselves are proportionate and effective. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the regulations in due course? Will she commit to producing impact assessments and publishing them alongside such reviews? Most important, will she commit to bringing any future regulations to the House before they come into force?
I do not intend to go into the details of each regulation within the instrument, but as the regulations have been in place for approaching two months now, I want to discuss the issues that local authorities have experienced in implementing them and in the general approach to interactions with local authorities, as it is vital that the Government listen and take urgent steps to learn from their mistakes—and mistakes have been made. As we know, the Government were too slow to act in Leicester, and its local authorities have raised ongoing concerns about the way the Government have handled the situation there. It is widely believed that if Leicester had been able to access the testing data much sooner—I will come back to the wider issues with testing data later— it could have avoided a lockdown, but that did not happen.
The situation in Leicester was flagged in Government on 8 June, but another 10 days passed before the Health Secretary announced that Leicester had a problem, and it was not until 30 June that Leicester went into lockdown for two weeks. Following that, although the lockdown was extended for another two weeks in mid-July, it was not until the end of July, following ongoing pressure from Members, that the Government announced additional funding for Leicester businesses. As we know, Leicester was the first place to go into a local lockdown, but a month later, when areas in the north of England—in Greater Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire—were placed into local lockdown on 30 July, it was clear at that point that lessons had not been learned. Again, the Government’s communication was chaotic and caused widespread confusion and anxiety.
The Government announced new restrictions on 30 July, the eve of Eid, less than three hours before the rules came into force. Understandably, Greater Manchester’s Mayor and deputy Mayor, along with council leaders, raised concerns about how the changes were announced by the Government. It is not acceptable to announce local restrictions late at night on Twitter, just hours before they are due to come into place. The public deserve clear and timely communication of changes and decisions that affect the everyday life of individuals, families and businesses. Importantly, there needs to be transparency about the reasons and thresholds for introducing and easing local restrictions. It is not fair to leave local areas in the dark. I hope we can avoid a repeat of that approach, although it is noted that the powers of the Secretary of State under regulation 3(5) do not require him to consult with a local authority before giving a direction. Perhaps the Minister will provide some assurances on that point.
There is an issue not only with powers being exercised centrally, but with information. Local directors of public health and local authority leaders have been asking for access to detailed data since the launch of test and trace at the end of May. Starting from July, councils were given access to weekly postcode data for their area, but it only showed positive test results and did not contain granular data on where people live or work, and was often out of date by the time it arrived. Data on local outbreaks needs not only to be shared in a timely way, but to be comprehensive and include information such as addresses, workplaces and ethnicity, which still is not routinely being shared. I hope the Minister will outline in her response what is being done to ensure that those vital details are being shared with local authorities to help them to tackle infection rates. The powers in the regulations will not be effective unless local authorities have the information in the first place to act on them.
Additionally, local authorities are concerned that the centralised Government test and trace operation has failed to reach many of the most vulnerable residents, leading to a number of councils setting up their own localised test and trace systems. That is the biggest vote of no confidence in the privatised national system of test and trace that the Government set up. Perhaps the Government heard those criticisms, because on 14 August they announced they would assign dedicated teams of contact tracers to more than 10 local authorities, after trials in Leicester, Luton, and Blackburn with Darwen. Will the Minister update us on when they expect those teams to be up and running?
It is vital that the scope of restrictions under these regulations and other laws is easily understood by local people. That is key to maintaining the public buy-in and trust that is needed for restrictions to be effective. They must also make sense. As a group of Manchester MPs highlighted in a letter to the Health Secretary on 18 August, the scope of local restrictions must make sense for local communities: where people go to work or school, socialise and shop are all important considerations, as people tend not to organise their lives around geographical administrative boundaries.
Communication also matters. Clear public health messaging is more vital than ever at this time. That is particularly so when different areas are subject to different measures. Tougher measures have been introduced in Bolton this weekend, as the infection rate has risen to 99 cases per 100,000 per week—the highest in England. The restrictions include not mixing with other households in any setting, indoors or outdoors. Those are different from some of the other restrictions in Greater Manchester.
Clear messaging matters. For example, just last week the borough found itself in what the Mayor of Greater Manchester described as a “completely unsustainable position” in which the Government planned to release restrictions despite a rising number of cases. That was, of course, before an 11th-hour U-turn. I empathise with the Mayor. Restrictions are hard enough to explain to the public without their being introduced in such a completely illogical way.
That is why it is vital that each local area must have a clear plan in place detailing steps to take in the event of an increase in cases. Those restrictions must be easily understood by local people. Telling people that they can go to the pub but not visit their family is a message that is hard to explain in public health terms and risks damaging public trust. That is why it is vital to ensure that restrictions are effective. I understand that people in Leicester, for example, are still being told they are not allowed to meet other people in their own back gardens, yet they can meet people in a pub. I should like the Minister to set out—in writing if she cannot respond now—the public health reason for that distinction.
Where councils are on the Government’s watchlist and there is a clear and imminent public health ground to take action, I think it is fair to say they feel they can take enforcement action under the regulations. However, where there is not an increase in covid cases, councils are less certain whether they can take action. It would assist them if there were a clearer steer from Government on the circumstances in which is acceptable to use the regulations. There is no accompanying guidance to the regulations to advise councils on the factors that they should consider when contemplating action. That is also an important issue for any business that might be affected by a council decision. After all, what use is the ability to challenge a decision in the magistrates court if there is no detail on the basis on which that can be done?
If a local authority were concerned that, unless a premises took account of the need to socially distance customers, the situation would lead to an increase in the spread of covid-19, would that be enough for it to take enforcement action under the regulations? Is that the baseline for action? What factors may a magistrates court take into account when considering an appeal against such a decision? I would not expect local businesses to have access to the epidemiological data that might lead to such a decision, but is the impact on a business’s viability a relevant factor? What would the timescale be for a magistrates court to hear such an appeal? It is no good having a hearing on the issue months after the event. The business might have gone bust in the meantime.
The one positive from debating the regulations so long after they were introduced is the fact that we have the opportunity to look in a little more detail at how they have worked in practice. I am grateful that the Minister has said that already 61 directions have been issued under the regulations. Can she confirm, for each of those directions, whether the Secretary of State was notified as soon as possible, and within 24 hours of the issuing of the direction, as per the guidance? I understand that one direction was appealed to the Secretary of State, and representations were made. What was the timescale for that? It would be useful for individuals who might be affected to know the timescales for decisions. How many fines have been issued under the regulations to date, for breaches of the directions issued by local authorities?
As we heard from the Minister, the regulations give the Secretary of State the power to require a local authority to make or revoke a direction, after consulting the chief medical officer or a deputy chief medical officer. I heard from the Minister that the Secretary of State has so far not given any such direction, and I hope that we can move forward, in the sense that local authorities use the power when the Secretary of State considers it appropriate. I should be grateful for more detail regarding the dialogue and processes that should happen before the Secretary of State issues such a direction. Will the Minister also explain how this set of regulations interacts with Government guidance and other legislative regimes? We are hearing from councils that they are struggling to understand that, and it would be helpful for them to have a clear set of guidelines about when the directions apply and how they interact with other restrictions.
What is the role of Members of Parliament in terms of these regulations, particularly in respect of introducing and easing restrictions? There is nothing in the regulations that requires a Member of Parliament to be consulted, but we have heard many outbursts in the media from hon. Members about their concerns about restrictions in their local areas. Will the Minister confirm that there will be an opportunity for all hon. Members, including Opposition Members, to make representations directly to the Department should consideration be given to issuing directions in their area?
A story appeared in The Observer yesterday about a report apparently prepared by Public Health England that stated that the national lockdown in parts of the north of England had little effect on the level of infections. The story says that when comparing other English regions, the study says:
“Each region has experienced its own epidemic journey with the north peaking later and the North West, Yorkshire and Humber and East Midlands failing to return to a near zero Covid status even during lockdown, unlike the other regions which have been able to return to a near pre-Covid state.”
It also questions why anyone should expect fresh local lockdowns to work in these areas now, and asks:
“If we accept the premise that in some areas the infection is now endemic - how does this change our strategy? If these areas were not able to attain near zero-Covid status during full lockdown, how realistic is it that we can expect current restriction escalations to work?”
Given the content of today’s regulations, I can only assume that the view expressed in that report is not shared by the Department. Can the Minister shed any light on the report and what assessment the Department has made of the effectiveness to date of the powers given to local authorities under these regulations? It is important that we clear that up.
Let us talk about what is not in these regulations, as well as what is in them. Perhaps the most glaring omission is financial support for those affected. The Government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the devastating economic impact of these restrictions. They must acknowledge the economic consequences of putting certain areas or businesses back into lockdown. There are still no clear plans in place to provide targeted economic support to areas of the country that are forced to increase restrictions or become subject to local lockdowns. A tailored approach to support businesses and employment in affected areas is needed, and that must take local circumstances into account and include adequate support for those who need to self-isolate. Effective local lockdowns depend on people self-isolating when they are supposed to. We have been warning for months that the Government need to ensure that people who need to self-isolate can afford to do the right thing, but once again the Government have been too slow to recognise the problem.
The Government recently announced plans to address the issue, but that will unfortunately apply only to a limited number of areas with high rates of covid-19, meaning that only one in eight workers will be covered by the scheme. That does not make sense when the instruction to self-isolate applies to everyone in the country. If the Government accept that additional support is needed for people to self-isolate in some areas, then they should accept that it is needed everywhere. Everyone should get the support they need to self-isolate, and there is no logical reason why such a distinction is being made.
In any event, £13 a day does not go anywhere near far enough to support the lowest earners who need to self-isolate. Even the Health Secretary must agree with that, given that he has previously said that statutory sick pay in the UK is not enough to live on. Can the Minister explain how the Government have arrived at a solution that offers only some people a level of support that the Secretary of State has already acknowledged is not enough? It is not acceptable that so far into the pandemic the Government do not have a strategy on that. The Government were eventually forced to provide support in Leicester, but they have been unclear about whether they would do the same in other areas. Individuals and businesses deserve clarity and support.
And what about schools? We know that missing school is bad for child development and widens existing inequalities. Indeed, the Education Policy Institute report published at the end of last month found that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has actually stopped closing for the first time in a decade. With many schools returning last week, and more set to return this week, we have been clear that keeping schools open should be prioritised in the event of local restrictions being introduced to ensure that children’s education is not disrupted again. Will the Minister provide clarity on what steps the Government will take to prioritise schools in the event of local restrictions being introduced? What plans are there to ensure the continuation of education should exceptional circumstances mean that some children cannot attend school in person?
To come back to test and trace, without a vaccine, getting an effective test, track and isolate system is the only way to safely reopen society. It is vital to minimise the need to introduce wide-ranging local restrictions wherever possible and to effectively manage local outbreaks where they occur. Right now, however, the Government’s approach is failing and people have lost confidence in the system. With cases on the increase and the Government pushing for everyone to return to work, it is more important than ever that test and trace is working to its full potential, yet we hear of new issues with it almost every day.
The Government seem to have completely taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that tests are readily available and quickly administered. The latest figures are not encouraging. The percentage of people reached by the system decreased again last week, with the proportion of close contacts of people who tested positive for covid-19 being reached through the test and trace programme at its lowest level since the system was launched—down from 77.1% in the previous week to just 69.4%. The number of cases handled online or by call centres is even lower, at just 59.8%—a staggering 37% lower than the 97.3% of contacts reached by local health protection teams.
It is also taking longer for people to get their results. Although an improvement on the previous week, only 49.3% of tests taken at regional test sites, and 59.9% taken at mobile testing units, received their test results within 24 hours. The number of satellite tests and home tests receiving a result within 48 hours fell to just 8.1% and 17.6% respectively. Home testing kits and satellite test centres both saw an increase in the median time taken from taking a test to receiving the results, with satellite test centres increasing from 65 hours to 76 hours, and home testing kits increasing from 76 hours to 86 hours.
There are also still issues with capacity. More than 100,000 tests lie unused every day, yet at the end of last month, England and Scotland ran out of home testing kits. Last week we heard that, once again, there are clearly problems with the testing infrastructure as people across the country are being sent hundreds of miles away for testing appointments. In spite of all that, the Government seem determined to reward the private sector companies, which are still not reaching more than half the contacts of those who test positive, by renewing their contracts.
These are unprecedented times and it was always going to be challenging, but surely we can do better than that. The Government’s own scientific experts have been clear. We need tests to be done quickly. We were promised a 24-hour turnaround for test results by the end of June, but it is now September and the numbers are still nowhere near that.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman draw my attention to which particular regulation in the instrument he is referring to? I am not quite sure how that fits with the regulations we are discussing.
Justin Madders
Of course the regulations do not deal with test and trace, but it is clear that, unless we have an effective test and trace system, local lockdowns will not be successful and we will not beat the virus.
We know that the NHS and social care face significant pressure in winter months, which is likely to be further exacerbated by covid-19 this year. We do not want to head into a winter disaster with a second wave of covid-19 over us. We are far from where we need to be. We need to deliver routine testing in care homes and for NHS staff, and to prioritise airports and other frontline workers. We need contact tracing and testing to work properly and to be led by local teams that understand their local areas.
Although we support the introduction of local restrictions where they are needed to curb the spread of covid-19, and as a consequence we will not seek to divide the Committee, those restrictions must be complemented by adequate resources for the local authorities tasked with implementing and monitoring those restrictions, and proper financial support for those individuals and businesses affected by the restrictions. The Government were too slow into lockdown, too slow to protect our care homes and too slow to provide our key workers with protective equipment. We cannot afford for them to be too slow in getting these local lockdown restrictions right. I repeat the plea that resources must follow these responsibilities or we risk them being ineffective and creating economic damage across the board.
Adam Afriyie
I rise to speak briefly. I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Ali. I will make one observation and ask one question of the Minister. The observation is that, as the local MP for Windsor, I have been incredibly impressed by how quickly local authorities have responded. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and I have been on the telephone with Bracknell Forest Council on a biweekly basis. I have been on the telephone with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. I also observe that Slough, which is not a Conservative-held council, was incredibly quick to respond. What strikes me most is the grip they have on what is going on in local areas. I therefore welcome the putting right of the missing regulatory framework to enable local authorities to continue to function in that way.
First, to give a brief example of how that works, for the numbers of pupils in local schools, the local authorities—the royal borough in particular—helped out by being able to produce all those statistics quickly for the reports to central Government. Secondly, with a small outbreak in the Bracknell Forest area, the local authority and the local resilience forum knew in detail within 48 hours exactly who, where, when and how these things were contracted.
If anything, I have heard from local authorities that a bit of a frustration has been that they have been unable to act more quickly and, in a way, unable to be instructed to act more quickly. They were holding that data locally and responding locally. I have to say that they have been doing a really good job.
My question for the Minister is to get some clarity. I think she was referring to upper-tier local authorities. I am not an expert on local authorities, so will she clarify whether that means that all individual local authorities may be able to act within this remit, or is there a definition of upper-tier local authorities that excludes some authorities?
Another frustration of the local authorities that I work with is that, although they may have been able to ask to close an entire area, street, particular business complex or retail park, they have been unable to take action in individual premises or more specific areas. I wonder whether the regulations cover such areas, so that local authorities may drill down in more detail and be more responsive than they have been able to be up until now. With that, I conclude my remarks and very much welcome the regulations.
Jo Churchill
I thank in particular the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, who have shown, in very different ways, exactly why the regulations are needed and how well they are working. Where people are talking together and using the information that is getting to the frontline, they are now able to respond and to act quickly.
In the initial stages, we were keen to have a national approach to protect the NHS, in order that we could then start to move the policy forward. That is what we have done by enabling the local authorities, Mayors and so on to talk together so that they—as both hon. Members alluded to—may deal with their local communities. They know their local communities best, and that has come across clearly.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will forgive me, but I will trot through as many of his points as I can remember that have a vague relevance to the regulations that we are discussing today. He will forgive me, perhaps, for not going off at a complete tangent and following him down the various paths on which he wished to take us. However, I thank him for his contribution.
The regulations are necessary, and they are important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they empower local authorities to protect people in their area from this terrible virus. Giving directions is a difficult decision for local authorities to take, but they are in the best place to know the right interventions to impose in order to stop the virus spreading locally unchecked. They are often using the regulations as a warning shot and, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, they give the local authorities the power to be a little more attuned. We have seen that very much in Leicester: two particular roads appeared to be flouting the rules, and those two roads were targeted in a specific way, enabling the locality to respond to the challenge much more effectively.
Secondly, giving those powers to local authorities is important because they protect those of us who do not live in those areas. As a result of local interventions, outbreaks can be prevented or contained locally, stopping infection from spreading elsewhere, which is significant.
Thirdly, enabling local authorities to introduce these restrictions shows our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused way. As I have said, we will learn from the use of these powers as local authorities give directions for preventing transmission and respond to localised outbreaks.
These regulations are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which sets out a framework for health protection that requires much of the detailed provision to be delivered through these regulations. The regulations enable local authorities to impose targeted local measures to prevent and control outbreaks in their area. However, occasionally there has still been the need for the Government to impose more serious restrictions, as we have seen in Leicester and parts of the north of England, in what are often referred to as local lockdowns. If the possibility of imposing more serious interventions is being considered, local leaders, chief executives and the directors of public health are consulted by the NHS test and trace team, Public Health England and the joint biosecurity centre, to inform that decision making and to be consulted on it.
Today’s debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the range of activities that the Government have undertaken in response to coronavirus. Moving to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we always said that there would be local outbreaks that would require local action, so I do not think that what we are doing in these regulations should come as any surprise. Will it cause confusion? Local authorities can already close premises for various reasons, such as environmental health reasons, so I do not think that it is unusual in our current environment for people to expect changes to come quite fluidly.
It is really important that we are able to act quickly and stop local outbreaks, and this is the right approach. To enable local authorities to have the power to do so, we have made another £300 million available to them to develop their plans. As we have heard, those plans are working, and as the hon. Gentleman himself said, they are very important in making sure that any action is attuned to the local area. That money is on top of the £3.7 billion provided to local authorities to support the response to the pandemic.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State heard about things in good order; he hears as soon as is reasonably practicable about where these directions have been laid. As yet, however, we do not have any data on the fines or the fixed penalty notices; we will have it quite soon, when these regulations have been laid. That question made me smile wryly, because the summer recess was between the dates. Therefore, although six weeks have passed, there have been only a handful of parliamentary sitting days, so I think we have got on to things as speedily as possible.
An impact assessment is not required for regulations that last for less than a year, and these regulations are due to expire in less than a year, so there is no such requirement. In the other place, Baroness Thornton asked a similar question about how data was being used. Data is key to the scientific community, so that scientists can be availed of it to fight covid-19. At the start of this pandemic, only six short months ago, we had very little data. Now, as we have heard, we have the ability to drill down even to a postcode level, to know where somebody who may have had a positive test is. That data is now at our fingertips.
As of today, we have the capacity to do 357,873 tests. Although I would freely say that, yes, some of those tests are challenging, 84.3% of people taking tests have their results the next day, and over 42.2% of people taking home tests get their results within 48 hours. Some 16 million tests have been done in this country, and that has been built from a standing start. I pay tribute to Public Health England and others; it has been a broad coalition of the NHS, public health and private industry that has allowed us to do this amazing job.
Justin Madders
On the question of tests, the Minister gave the figure of some 375,000 capacity—
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware that the number of tests processed each day is somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000. In the context of hearing about people’s problems with accessing tests, where does she think the issue is in getting that capacity to the right places?
Jo Churchill
I will briefly explain, in 30 seconds. We have always said that we would go to where the problem arose, so it is right and proper that where we have an issue of rising prevalence, we will take our mobile testing centres there. We have 73 regional centres, 21 satellite centres, 236 mobile centres and 72 walk-through centres. Ensuring that we can be fluid in our approach and that we get to those places where we see a rise in numbers is, in my opinion, the right approach. Do we have more to do? Yes, we do, but I think we can proudly say that we are hitting numbers that are now ahead of many other countries in Europe and across the world, and showing that we are building a world-class system that can help to protect people.
The argument is that we need more testing, we need to be able to trace and we need to build that capacity. That is why we have recruited another 18,000 into Public Health England, to back up that effort to test and trace. Supporting the local authorities, we have contact tracing, the daily situational report, the daily exceedance report and the daily surveillance reports, so that we can help people to get the granular information that helps them to target their local area.
As I said, an impact assessment is not required for regulations that last for less than a year, and these regulations will expire in six months. However, the Government are considering the economic impact of the regulations on businesses and individuals—that was another question the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked—and the personal impact on those with protected characteristics; on people’s mental health and wellbeing; on religious groups and many others. This is a highly complex situation that we are dealing with.
The dashboards for local authorities are updated daily with all the data received to midnight the previous day. We are ensuring that all local and public health bodies have the data they need for any plans they might be making for preparedness for potential outbreaks, and we produce detailed data in dashboards for local authorities to give them clarity regarding their local area.
We have started sharing that postcode-level testing and case data with local authorities, and it is available to them at any time. It is important that we send the positive message that, while this is work in progress, we are doing more and more each week to help them to get more information, because that is vital for unlocking the economy and opening our lives up as far as we can in this covid-tinged world that we are all having to get used to.
The Department for Education has published full guidance on the protective measures for schools, colleges and childcare settings, which should help to minimise risk. The guidance includes the PHE-endorsed system of controls that helps settings to implement those measures in order to prevent and control any infection. Those are outlined more explicitly in DFE guidance.
We have agreed to provide a monthly report to Parliament detailing the measures imposed by local authorities and Ministers under these powers, and will shortly be making a written ministerial statement setting out the record of the notifications received, which will be deposited in the House Library. The Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions more than, I think, any other Secretary of State, and I am sure that when he next does so, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have ample opportunity to ask his questions.
However, as of 2 September, the Secretary of State had been notified of the 61 directions that had been given by the 23 local authorities to which I alluded earlier. Examples of those directions given by local authorities include closing a funfair due to be held in an area where there was a high incidence of the virus; closing a large entertainment venue for failing to ensure social distancing measures were in place, or complied with by visitors; imposing restrictions on the organiser of a large social event to ensure guests complied with social distancing guidance; controlling people gathering in a street outside restaurants—trying to ensure people stay physically distanced while waiting to go inside areas is, of course, very important too—and prohibiting a planned food festival where in excess of 8,000 visitors were expected.
The extent of the powers means that local authorities can give directions, but they are not always necessary. For example, local authorities do not need any further powers to close nightclubs, as they can already be closed under the England-wide regulations. For raves, a local authority has the power to give a direction to impose prohibitions, requirements or restrictions to stop an event, in addition to pre-existing rave legislation. Indoor raves of more than 30 people are already illegal. There are further restrictions on holding gatherings of more than 30 people in public outdoor spaces, and stricter gathering restrictions in certain protected areas under regional lockdowns.
Only the Secretary of State can close a school using the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020, but he can delegate that power to a local authority if necessary. For essential infrastructure, the regulations prohibit local authorities from giving a direction in respect of businesses that are considered essential. Guidance has been published in relation to what is essential infrastructure; that guidance is readily available, but includes registered childcare providers, airports, doctors’ surgeries, train stations, and nuclear facilities. In addition to the powers given to local authorities under the regulations, Public Health England, the joint biosecurity centre and NHS test and trace are consistently and continuously monitoring the levels of infection and other data on the prevalence of the virus across the country.
We continue to work closely with councils, local MPs and scientific experts to support local responses. Indeed, there are several people in this room to whom I have spoken about particular issues in their locality, to ensure we feed that information in so that we can make the best decisions. However, we have always been clear that we will need, and will take, swift and decisive action where necessary to contain local outbreaks by imposing more serious restrictions, often referred to as a local lockdown—for example, stopping people from different households meeting up with each other, or closing specific business sectors. Those nationally imposed measures at local level are in addition to the powers given to local authorities by the regulations that we are debating today.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the points that have been raised and the contributions that have been made. I will conclude by recording on behalf of the Government my thanks to the people of England for their ongoing observance of covid-19 guidance and legislation, helping to reduce the burden on our vital services and save lives through this crisis. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, every life lost is a tragedy, so we still need to bear down and work hard to make sure that we do absolutely everything we can to ensure that is kept to a minimum. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 750).
Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 693).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The regulations form part of the corporate insolvency and restructuring regime introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which Parliament passed in the summer. The Act introduced corporate restructuring tools, including a moratorium and restructuring plan, to keep companies going, particularly during this period of great economic uncertainty.
The regulations are for the pension element, and provide the board of the Pension Protection Fund—the statutory compensation scheme—with creditor rights in specified circumstances. That includes when a company, a limited liability partnership or a charitable incorporated organisation retains a moratorium from creditor action or a proposal on the restructure of the business, as applicable.
The Pension Protection Fund, as the Committee will be aware, pays compensation to eligible occupational pension scheme members when a sponsoring employer has become insolvent and the pension scheme’s assets are insufficient to meet the scheme’s liabilities. It was invented under the Labour Government and has been supported by all Governments since. It is funded mainly by a levy collected from eligible pension schemes.
In the circumstances, we believe that the regulations are vital for the continuation of the new regime, and I recommend them to the House.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mrs Murray, for letting me appear as a late substitute in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the shadow Minister for Pensions, has been unavoidably detained this afternoon. I am grateful for the chance to be here. I send my hon. Friend and his constituents my best wishes, and I am sure those of the Committee, after the very distressing events in Birmingham over the weekend. We are all thinking about that part of the United Kingdom today.
Organisations of all kinds face unprecedented challenges due to the impact of coronavirus. It is right for the law to change to reflect that. Recent figures suggest that Britain’s economy shrank by a fifth in the past quarter, and economists are warning us that we face risks of mass bankruptcies and job losses, particularly as Government support is set to be withdrawn in the coming months.
With that difficult context in mind, Labour supported measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act to help struggling businesses to remain open. We support the measures in the regulations to protect pension schemes when companies face financial difficulty, in particular by giving the Pension Protection Fund the ability to participate in the process. It is critical that the Government act to protect pension schemes at this difficult time.
The Minister is right to note the important role of the Pension Protection Fund in circumstances in which companies face financial difficulty. It is therefore crucial for the PPF to have access to, and influence over, the decisions about recovery plans in such circumstances. To that end, it is welcome that, further to assurances made by the Government during the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, this statutory instrument provides creditor and voting rights to the Pension Protection Fund, subject to appropriate constraints.
The Act, as was noted during its passage through Parliament, gives the Secretary of State considerable powers to intervene if restructuring plans and insolvency procedures are seeming to be abused to the detriment of pension scheme members. Will the Minister say a little more about the criteria to be used to assess the need for intervention? How will the Department for Work and Pensions stay vigilant about cases that may need its attention?
As I stressed at the outset, this is a period of unprecedented challenge to companies, as well as for partnerships and charities. We must all work to ensure that workers’ pensions are protected and that they fall under the protection and within the remit of the legislation that we are considering today, particularly in cases where their employers or former employers are in understandable financial difficulty.
Guy Opperman
I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments on our good friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is much missed and to whom we send our best wishes, and on his sober and sensible approach to the disastrous events over the weekend. All of us in the House would echo his comments, and I applaud what he said.
With regard to Government support for pensions organisations and for automatic enrolment in the various coronavirus job retention schemes, this Government have a fantastic record on showing true support—from the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—for organisations that we all represent up and down the country. As a result of the regulations, we have powers to intervene to assist pension scheme members whom we all represent.
The criteria for intervention, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, are no different for the particular roles of the Pensions Regulator or the Pension Protection Fund. The reality of the situation is that the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act takes over and provides protections for businesses. The regulations provide the support that we need for the Pension Protection Fund to do its job on an ongoing basis. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statement
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Machinery of Government
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
PEACE PLUS Programme
I can confirm that Her Majesty’s Government’s responsibility for the PEACE PLUS Programme will transfer from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Northern Ireland Office. This change will be effective immediately.
Grand Committee
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
NHS Counter Fraud Authority (Establishment, Constitution, and Staff and Other Transfer Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the NHS Counter Fraud Authority (Establishment, Constitution, and Staff and Other Transfer Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
It is a sad fact of life that the NHS is not immune to fraud. As noble Lords will be aware, this Government have backed the NHS with the biggest cash boost in its history—an extra £33.9 billion by 2023-24. This money will go on investment, recruitment and epidemic response. This is taxpayers’ money and we are determined to get the best return on that investment, so that it makes the biggest difference to the most people. Yet fraudulent activity in the NHS means that the money intended for patient care ends up in the pockets of those who did not legitimately earn it. This is wrong. From a practical point of view, this means that fewer resources are available to be spent on front-line health services such as patient care, healthcare facilities, doctors, nurses and other staff. On a reputational front, it damages trust in the system. From an ethical point of view, it is our duty to fight fraud, because this is taxpayers’ money and we have a duty to spend it appropriately. That is why we have prioritised the NHS Counter Fraud Authority—to ensure that it is an effective counterfraud organisation. We believe it is best that it operates independently as a body which can act without external interference or influence and perform those functions that cannot be undertaken at a local level: serious and complex investigations, such as those that cross borders, and cases of alleged bribery and corruption on a national level.
Since its inception as part of the department in 1998, its function has evolved and in autumn 2017 it was launched as an independent special health authority. As a result, due to the NHS Act 2006, it is limited to a maximum lifespan of three years and so is due to be abolished on 31 October 2020. To prevent this, a statutory instrument was laid on 11 June 2020 to extend the abolition date by three years to 30 October 2023. I will take this opportunity to highlight the important work of the NHSCFA and set out why we need to extend its lifespan for a further three years.
The NHSCFA is a national centre of excellence. Fraud is a hidden crime and to fight it you have to find it. The CFA has done a valuable job in building the right relationships with organisations across the health and enforcement sectors to take that fight to the thieves who seek to deprive the NHS of resources for patient care. The NHSCFA is continually developing its intelligence and investigation capabilities and is breaking new ground in how to detect and prevent fraud. It has also set important national standards for the counterfraud work of NHS providers and commissioners, which apply to independent healthcare providers and NHS organisations. Its work is clearly bearing fruit; the NHSCFA’s latest strategic intelligence assessment shows an overall estimated reduction in losses from fraud of £60 million between 2017-18 and 2018-19. It also shows a £28 million reduction specifically on dental contractor fraud, thanks to a relentless focus by the NHSCFA over recent years, along with an £85 million annual reduction in fraud losses from false claims to entitlement to help with healthcare since 2017.
It is clear that this approach is working and that to change direction now would be a mistake. This concerted approach by NHSCFA to improve fraud awareness and drive up fraud reporting across the NHS is bearing fruit. We need it more than ever, especially when we are in the middle of the greatest threat to public health that we have seen for generations. As part of the government response to coronavirus, the Chancellor has repeatedly said that the NHS will get whatever funds it needs. An initial £5 billion coronavirus fund was established in the Budget in April 2020 and this was increased to £48.5 billion in the coronavirus emergency response fund in the Chancellor’s summer update, of which £31 billion has been approved to support our health services. We are continuing to work with the NHS and HMT to ensure that the NHS gets the funding and resources it needs, so total funding may change.
Although we have seen the nation coming together to celebrate the heroic work of NHS staff, unfortunately coronavirus presents a heightened risk of fraud, where criminals may seek to exploit the situation. Never before has a counterfraud response to protect this investment been so important. To us, “Protect the NHS” is about protecting not just staff but the money that taxpayers contribute to this invaluable national resource. The NHSCFA has played a key role during this period and has produced and shared coronavirus threat assessments with partners, and coronavirus counterfraud guidance specifically for the NHS. This includes guidance outlining the unique risks to the coronavirus response and specific guidance outlining types of mandate fraud and how to identify, prevent and respond to them.
As technology evolves, the risks to the NHS will evolve too, especially from fraud, so we will need organisations such as the NHSCFA to co-ordinate the response at a national level. If we made the decision to abolish the NHSCFA today, it would expose the NHS to significant financial risks. It would mean that there was no ability to accurately record and assess the nature and scale of fraud and to inform the response, both within the NHS and across the wider health group. It would result in serious and complex fraud investigations being transferred elsewhere; for example, to other NHS bodies, the police or the DHSC. It would involve costly additional expenditure for local NHS bodies at a time when they should be focusing on a global epidemic. It would undermine the funding of much-needed resources that are critical for patient care.
I urge noble Lords to keep this vital organisation in place and allow it to keep doing its important work, providing confidence and certainty to so many people. I commend this draft order to the Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, his comprehensive review and his brevity. I support the order. The NHS has been magnificent at tackling Covid-19. Perhaps we should consider striking medals for that army of devoted NHS servants. I was a Health Minister in three Administrations. There was fraud in those far-off days; there is fraud now. Ministerial intervention was not effective then; my colleagues and I did not stamp out fraud. The Minister now is finding fraud to be resilient if he seeks a renewed continuation of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. Surely he is engaged in a positive, considered and professional reactive policy.
I could say that a distinguished Chief Medical Officer said in my hearing that in this respect, the NHS is a monster and it has got a brain. The Minister has a more positive attitude than that exasperated senior official, the Chief Medical Officer. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, got it right when he ventured to say most positively that the NHS is the nation’s religion. Certainly, it is a great NHS: that is absolutely certain.
I have some brief questions for the Minister. How many prosecutions for fraud were there in each of the years 2018 and 2019? How many successful prosecutions were there in those years? By what process are prosecutions initiated? With reference to paragraph 7.2 in our helpful notes, does his department have an estimate in money terms of the amount of fraud currently under way? How does his department gather and seek such information? Given the large sums of fraudulent moneys that have been discovered to be involved, will he consider enlarging the budget of the authority for better and ever more effective working? How many staff are engaged in the authority? Perhaps the Minister will give the name of the current chair or director of the authority and indicate the salary paid annually to that person. In conclusion, congratulations must go to the authority on saving the sums of money already indicated.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones, one of the most liked and respected politicians in Wales. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order, which I certainly support. The NHS is rightly a cherished national institution and extra funding has indeed been brought forward by the Government. That is quite right, particularly in light of the current challenging crisis that faces us.
Fraud is always to be condemned, but there is something especially nauseating when it is taking money away from patient care in our cherished national institution, the NHS. Fraud is something that we should all take very seriously. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I thank the NHS Counter Fraud Authority for the work that it has been doing developing intelligence against fraud and saving the NHS money by uncovering fraud: £60 million in the last year for which figures are available. Of that, £27.6 million related to dental contractor fraud, so that was a considerable amount.
The Minister for Care in the other place said that coronavirus presents a heightened risk of fraud; indeed, the Minister said the same again today. In the light of that, does the Minister believe that additional resources are needed in these challenging circumstances to save additional money for the NHS? If so, what is being done in that regard? I know that the Counter Fraud Authority has been working on a revised strategy, but I do not believe that it has yet been published. Does the Minister have any detail on that, and will he indicate when that strategy will be published?
I believe that PPE for combating Covid—which has presented, in some respects, a challenge with regard to fraud—is purchased centrally by the Government and is therefore not subject to the scrutiny and supervision of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. Can the Minister indicate what body is scrutinising this area for fraud, what supervision does exist, and if that body—whatever it may be—is working alongside the NHS Counter Fraud Authority in order that the two bodies can be truly effective in that respect?
I thank the Minister very much for bringing these regulations forward; we should all welcome them. I hope that we are able—because I realise that this is on a three-year rolling cycle—to assure the people who are doing this vital work that their jobs are safe. I am sure that is the case, but I fear that when we see these things on a three-year rolling cycle, towards the end of the three years the employees and those working for the authority might perhaps be wondering what will happen to their jobs. I am sure that that is not the case, but anything that the Minister can say about the continuing security of these jobs would be welcomed by the House. With that, I lend my support to this order.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) (V)
My Lords, I support this order fully. It will allow the NHSCFA to continue to protect the NHS from fraud, bribery and corruption, thereby safeguarding taxpayers’ money. Some £286 million of savings has already been made over the past few years. Doctors and dentists who defraud citizens will face charges. This order will be able to deal with this kind of corruption.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, this is a very important order. I declare my interests; I am married to a former full-time senior partner GP and I was for 12 years a member of the Public Accounts Committee, specialising in health matters.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing this forward. It is very timely. I wonder why three years was chosen rather than a Parliament, but that is not a key issue. I note, though, that paragraph 3.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that this applies to England only. Does that mean that there is a comparable body in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland? I hope the answer to that is “yes”—but if it is not, why on earth is it not?
I am not clear—and this goes back to my Public Accounts Committee years—who is actually auditing the work of this very important body. Is it the National Audit Office or some other organisation? Certainly, in my experience across a wide spectrum of departments and semi-independent bodies, the Comptroller and Auditor General in that organisation does a superb job and refers problem areas to the Public Accounts Committee. If the Minister is not able to answer that this afternoon, I hope he will be able to write to me.
I will raise an issue that might not be absolutely key at this point. I note that there are still too many examples of two chemists in a town trading under different names but actually belonging to the same company. The whole respect of the pharmaceutical and chemist world is basically that they get a primary payment, and that should not be happening.
Of course, at the top of my mind is the protective equipment that has had to be bought. While there were challenges there—not everything went as smoothly as I am sure the Minister would have liked—nevertheless I recognise the enormous effort that was put into providing protective equipment. But of course, when things are done at speed, inevitably there are loopholes, and I just wonder what we are doing in terms of helping this organisation to look closely at the contracts that were signed, the delivery of those contracts and whether the product was up to specification, to ensure that public money, paid for by the taxpayer, is well spent and that if the contract has not been delivered as thought, there will be not necessarily prosecution but some form of retribution repaid to this organisation.
I will ask another question that may seem strange. Is there any part of the NHS that is excluded from this organisation? It is very important that there is nobody and no part of the NHS that shall be excluded.
My noble friend Lord Bourne raised an absolutely crucial question. There is, it is rumoured—so I am told and I thank my noble friend for reminding me of this, because I did pick it up the other day—a revised strategy circulating somewhere. If there is, it seems to me that it should not be circulating for very much longer, because we really do want to know what is happening on the ground.
I will make just two further small points that are tangential to this. A colleague of mine whom I met a couple of days ago went for a test at Olympia. She was told that there was no space at Olympia and that she should go to Wellingborough—which happens to be next door to my former constituency. Upon complaint, it was discovered that there was space at Olympia. So that is a problem and a waste of resources.
In the papers over the weekend we saw the problem of past tests, where people have been cleared but there is some residue in their body that means that when the results are tested again, they come up as positive. That is another problem.
Finally, my noble friend—I do treat him as a friend, because I have known him for many years—Lord Jones has asked the right questions. How many people have been prosecuted? How many special prosecutions have there been? How many special initiatives have there been? Is my noble friend in a position to update the figures for savings that we have here?
I say again to my noble friend that we owe a huge thank you to the staff who are doing this work. It must be challenging and I hope that they are getting all the resources they need. I hope that they are getting the right skills. If they are short at all, will my noble friend confirm that, as far as he knows, they have got all the staff they need to do a first-class job?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I need to declare my interests as a former member of a clinical commissioning group and a current non-executive member of a hospital trust—because, of course, we get trained in fraud when we take up these non-exec positions. So I have been diligent in doing my online training with the NHS fraud authority. It is very rigorous and it makes you think very carefully about the whole range of fraud that might occur in the NHS, including in recruitment, procurement and so on. So I will just say that it is very useful that it is so diligent in this. Of course, it is part of the whole audit process that goes on within NHS foundations and NHS bodies all the time.
I thank the Minister for introducing these provisions, which we will of course be supporting. Fraud is by definition a hidden crime and those who commit fraud are of course in a minority. But we are talking about significant sums here. The 2018-19 estimates say that fraud cost the NHS about £1.27 billion. So fraud is not and never has been victimless, and in this case it impacts directly on patient care. I commend the work of the fraud authority in uncovering scams and ghost patients, but there is still quite a long way to go.
Unfortunately, Covid-19 presents a heightened risk of fraud, and it does so across the whole of society. As someone who had to have their bank cards changed three times during lockdown, I say that unscrupulous crooks are seeking to exploit the fact that systems are not working and in particular that our health system is under unprecedented pressure—and they are doing it for their own financial gain. I think all noble Lords will agree that robust response is imperative to safeguard the reputation and resources of our health service, so we welcome these provisions and the extension of their lifespan for a further three years.
The disruption caused by Covid-19 has seen a reported spike in fraud cases across health and social care, ranging from fake PPE to recruitment, as well as cybersecurity attacks. I think noble Lords will agree that this is deeply concerning, so what assessment have the Government made of reports that levels of fraud have been increasing during the Covid-19 crisis, and is the noble Lord able to share any preliminary figures with us today?
Like my noble friend Lord Jones, I say that it is imperative that the fraud authority has the resources it needs to investigate, detect and prevent fraud. So could the Minister assure the Committee that the resources that it does need to investigate, detect and prevent fraud are there, and that there has been increased funding, commensurate with the increased risk?
An urgent concern is the relaxation of recruitment rules and practices to allow NHS bodies to hire staff working across the health and social care sector. I completely accept that this has been necessary at a time of emergency, but I wonder what assessment the Government have made of these exceptional circumstances and the unique pressures that may impact on methods of preventing fraud in recruitment. What advice and support is the fraud authority giving to NHS organisations to help them prevent fraud in these difficult times?
PPE has already been mentioned in this debate, and we have talked a lot about it in the last few months. It is of enormous concern that amounts of public money have been directly awarded outside the usual tendering process, with no competition. What steps is the authority taking to prevent fraud linked to PPE procurement? Given that PPE procurement for Covid-19 is now centrally managed, can the Minister confirm whether this falls outside or inside the remit of the authority? Who will be investigating this as we move forward? Are cases being referred to the Department of Health’s anti-fraud unit, supported by the authority? I hope that the Minister will also take the opportunity to confirm that there will be an inquiry into PPE procurement as we move forward.
The Minister has already mentioned something of vital importance: cross-working. The most recent annual report identifies a number of challenges and potential barriers that affect the ability to tackle fraud against the NHS and highlights the fact that the level of understanding of the nature of fraud in the NHS continues to be uneven across the health system. So if there is underreporting of fraud and suspicious activity, that is of continuing concern. Can the Minister expand on what the authority intends to do to improve cross-NHS working?
In June, as has been mentioned, the Cabinet Office published the Counter Fraud Functional Standard, which is intended to be introduced across the NHS by the end of the financial year. We certainly welcome this move towards a common counter approach across the public sector. But what steps is the NHS Counter Fraud Authority taking to support the NHS organisations to implement this change? Can the Minister confirm that this will be introduced across the NHS by the end of this financial year, as intended, or will it need to be delayed? Perhaps he could explain that.
So we welcome this order and I think that these are all questions that will probably need to be answered in due course.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who contributed to this lively debate. I completely endorse the comments of several of them, including my noble friend Lord Naseby, who thanked the CFA for its work. It is tough work; it requires huge diligence. It is not always glamorous, exciting, blue lights and fun; it is about grinding out huge amounts of detective work and auditing and being thorough. I am extremely grateful for the work of the CFA and say a massive thanks for its impact. Some of that is seen directly through the numbers, but a lot of it, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is seen through soft impacts such as cross-working, “encourager les autres” and a general sense of grip, which it is an important thing for NHS management to have over the system.
With all the taxpayers’ money that is going into investment, recruitment and epidemic response, never before has counterfraud been quite so important—a point made by several noble Lords. The CFA has been instrumental in providing guidance and organisation across the health sector and, very importantly, in sharing intelligence with law enforcement partners.
A number of noble Lords asked about the approach of the CFA. We know that preventing loss is much more cost effective than prosecuting suspects and recovering funds. That is why the CFA does an enormous amount of work on fraud prevention methodologies. It is pushing hard to build and develop capabilities across the NHS and to share national standards and best practice with all parts. That is why it is driving a national, co-ordinated and cross-organisational response focused on prevention—the approach alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
I say in response to my noble friend Lord Naseby that the CFA was established as a special authority only in 2017, but we have seen from its own strategic intelligence assessment that there has been a year-on-year reduction in fraud loss estimates. For that, we are enormously grateful.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the number of prosecutions. The CFA has 45 ongoing investigations, involving 165 suspects. In 37 of those cases, a potential fraud value has been calculated which exceeds £34 million. I hope that that gives the noble Lord an idea of the scale of this work. The estimate for NHS fraud has been reduced, according to the strategic impact authority, from £1.27 billion to £1.21 billion, which shows the recent impact of the CFA. The chair is Tom Taylor and his salary is currently £14,450 for an average of two or three days a month.
The noble Lord asked also about the type of fraud investigated by the CFA. Covid fraud has been focused on—cyber-enabled fraud through malicious emails, apps and SMS texts. It has also investigated fraudulent appeals designed to exploit public sympathy and the spreading of false information. In this, the CFA has worked closely with the Cabinet Office, which has provided incredible support.
On how much fraud is reported to the CFA, it receives around 5,500 reports each year. The figure of 5,500 for 2018-19 was an increase of 700 over the year before. Almost half of those reports relate to fraud committed by NHS staff and a quarter to fraud committed by NHS patients.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked a number of questions about the budget. The current budget of the CFA, which is an indicative, non-ring-fenced revenue budget allocation, is £11 million. That budget is funded through the DHSC in the same way as other health arm’s-length bodies. In 2019-20, we detected and recovered a total of £126 million which would have otherwise been lost to fraud.
My noble friend asked also about the PPE supply chain. PPE procurement during Covid-19 is currently managed centrally and not by NHS trusts. Therefore, Covid-19 procurement activity falls outside the CFA’s remit. The DHSC anti-fraud unit is working with partners to scrutinise transactions and reduce the risk of fraud against the Government—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about that specifically. The CFA is supporting this work, but I will take a moment to give special thanks to my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is very much leading the charge from the Cabinet Office in the anti-fraud campaign. I am a representative member from the health department on what is known as the “fraud board”, which meets regularly to update policies and programmes in this area.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, for his comments. On my noble friend Lord Naseby’s question about the devolved authorities, I want to clarify that the CFA, although focused on England, provides a huge amount of training, technical support, data and other specialist support for DAs. Although they handle this as a devolved area, they benefit greatly from the CFA’s expertise.
My noble friend is entirely right about Covid spending. I would like to have said that everyone behaved immaculately through the Covid campaign, but that is not true. We were subjected to an enormous, co-ordinated and systematic campaign by those who sought to defraud taxpayers. We are conscious of that. We put in place enormous co-ordination with the police authorities in order to spot fraudulent efforts. They were extremely energetic but not always successful, and we have prosecutions in place to chase down fraudsters who sought to take money unreasonably off taxpayers.
Auditing of the CFA is done by the National Audit Office. I reiterate the thanks given by my noble friend Lord Naseby to the CFA.
On the CFA’s three-year cycle, it is an arm’s-length body established as a special health authority under the National Health Service Act 2006, which gives it a maximum tenure of three years. It is therefore out of the electoral cycle. Affirmative secondary legislation is required to extend the tenure for a further three years until 30 October 2023, which is why we are here today.
I think that I have addressed a number of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I reiterate what I said on PPE in particular, which was subject to a concerted, organised effort by the criminal world to defraud the British taxpayer. Our response has been energetic and remains ongoing.
Extending the current model provides an opportunity for the CFA to continue its work. Its budget, which a number of noble Lords asked about, is under review, but we believe that it is ample for the work that it is doing. The department will continue to oversee the function of the CFA in its sponsorship role to ensure that it is fit for purpose. This will also allow the department to consider the best operating model for the CFA in the long term. The order is important secondary legislation that is integral to allowing the CFA independence and a crucial remit to continue. I urge noble Lords to approve it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing; others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other surfaces that they touch before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I shall immediately adjourn the Committee.
Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices (EUC Report)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Treaty scrutiny: working practices (11th Report, HL Paper 97).
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, it is my privilege as the chair of the International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ European Union Committee to move this Motion. In doing so, it is my very pleasant duty to acknowledge and thank the chair of the European Union Committee itself, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the chair of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, for the earlier reports for which they were responsible. They will be moved to be noted immediately after I have spoken. I also want to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for its continued engagement with the issues that we are to debate this afternoon.
The purpose of this debate is to consider how we will undertake the new and critically important task of scrutinising the international commitments that the Government propose that the country enters into. It is a critically important task because international agreements can be every bit as important as the domestic legislation it is the job of this House to scrutinise, but they receive only a fraction of the scrutiny. This point was made as long ago as 1872 by Walter Bagehot, who said, in his second edition of The English Constitution:
“Treaties are quite as important as most laws, and to require the elaborate assent of representative assemblies to every word of the law, and not to consult them even as to the essence of the treaty, is prima facie ludicrous.”
We have moved on from there, though it has been a slow and, many would say, still incomplete process. Our report traces some of the developments and, importantly, the Ponsonby rule, which goes back to the peace treaties of the First World War. Yet we lag far behind many countries in our parliamentary scrutiny of international commitments. The EU and USA have developed detailed arrangements for approval of agreements. The theme in all the reports that are for consideration today is whether the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—CRaG—processes will enable this House to perform the task of scrutiny which I believe everyone believes that it should.
We are disappointed that we have not had before this debate the reply of the Government to our report; it would have made it a more constructive and useful debate if we had had that. None the less, we look forward very much to the Minister’s reply. I welcome in that respect the positive engagement of both the Minister here today and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for their repeated statements in correspondence and orally that the Government share the view that scrutiny by Parliament, including by this House, is crucial. I look forward to hearing that repeated as well. I am particularly appreciative of the positive steps of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, to keep the committee that I chair informed of developments.
The three major issues I will refer to this afternoon are information, time—those two are connected—and what commitments are covered. We need information; we need to know what agreement is proposed and what its terms are. The worry is that, if we see the information and the text of a treaty only when it is signed, it may be too late for any effective scrutiny. Will the opportunity to improve the arrangements simply have passed, and does it then become an unwelcome choice of take it or leave it? This can be managed by sharing information in different ways, before the CRaG clock starts, through advising Parliament of negotiating mandates and enabling debate on those, keeping us informed of the progress of negotiations and providing notifications of what is likely to be laid soon. That may involve sharing information in private, which is not ideal, as many or perhaps all of us would prefer transparency. But if otherwise we will not see the outcome until much later, we have said that we will be prepared to receive it in private.
The second issue is the time available for our scrutiny. CRaG allows 21 sitting days, which is very tight, especially if we want to consult experts or stakeholders. We are very concerned about this issue. In Command Paper 63 in February 2019, important assurances were given by the Government, which included assurances that adequate time would be available for scrutiny—and scrutiny indeed by both Houses. That was the Government of Mrs May and not of Mr Johnson, but we hope that we can still receive the same assurance from the present Government. Can the Minister provide today the assurances that the present Government will do just as much as was promised in February 2019 and will now reconfirm those commitments? A sliding back, just at the moment that we need to see these agreements which Mr Johnson’s Government much vaunted during the Brexit debates, would be very regrettable. At the very least, it would raise the question of whether CRaG can be made fit for purpose at all.
Before proposing amendments to CRaG, we have proposed a pragmatic approach. We hope to be testing out this sort of arrangement on the agreements that we are scrutinising—or not yet scrutinising, but where inquiries have been opened—including the earliest, which is likely to be the UK-Japan deal. In a spirit of co-operation, Parliament and Government can test what works well, and develop new practices and approaches together. Still, some points that the Government need to act on are immediately clear, and were clear to my noble friend Lady Taylor’s committee and to that of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, including increased and regularised co-operation with the devolved regions and Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
One issue is that we need to find a way forward for enabling scrutiny of agreements beyond the strict terms of CRaG, in particular where amendments to existing agreements arise, and memoranda of understanding. Under the third limb of the Ponsonby rule, the Government accepted that Parliament ought to
“exercise supervision over agreements, commitments and undertaking by which the nation may be bound in certain circumstances and which may involve international obligations of a serious character, although no signed and sealed document may exist.”
Yet, despite the fact that this description clearly covers memoranda of understanding, which can have profound political consequences, we have thus far been unable to obtain assurances from the Government that these will be routinely disclosed to the committee, even when they involve significant international obligations.
MoUs can relate to important issues, such as deportation of terror suspects with assurances that they will not be tortured, or, more recently, the diplomatic immunity of individuals not covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. I refer here to the Harry Dunn issues. So we need to see these. The point was raised in our committee, including by Members with great experience and knowledge, that this might overwhelm the committee because of the number of such arrangements. It cannot be right for the Government to decide which amendments and MoUs are subjected to scrutiny; that must be a matter for Parliament.
So we have proposed a pragmatic and practical approach to sift such documents for scrutiny, and we hope that the Government will engage with this in a positive fashion. Our current solution therefore is to propose a sifting process so that only a manageable number of these would rise to the level of requiring detailed scrutiny. That is a proposal on which we particularly look forward to the Government’s response to the reports and their agreement on a way forward.
What is the timetable for agreeing a system for routinely sending us amendments, and other relevant treaty information? When can we expect to see a system in place that reports amendments and memoranda of understanding that are agreed, so that we can get on with our work? Are the Government willing to commit to providing regular lists of what has been agreed to help the Committee identify where scrutiny needs to be applied? I am looking forward to hearing not just from the Minister but from other noble Lords this afternoon as to how they see the work that we are to do going forward, and I hope that the debate on these reports will very much advance the aim that we have. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I am pleased that his committee has been established. I will say a few words as chair of the Constitution Committee to give some background as to why we took an interest in this issue.
The Constitution Committee launched an inquiry into Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of treaties in October 2018. We did so for three basic reasons. The first and obvious one is that we believed that treaty scrutiny mechanisms were not adequate, had failed and were flawed. That was based not just on the Ponsonby rule, which has been mentioned. We of course also looked at the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but we concluded that more needed to be done, and not just because times have changed and current procedures are no longer adequate. The fact is that Parliament has little or no chance to influence treaties while they are being negotiated and, indeed, only a very limited opportunity to potentially block ratification at the end of the whole process. That stops Parliament fulfilling some of its obligations and responsibilities to hold the Government to account.
Added to that is the fact that treaties have changed in nature over the years. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith pointed out that modern trade treaties touch on a wide range of policy issues that have a very significant and direct impact on everyday life. That is becoming increasingly clear when we see the treaties currently being discussed. So there was a strong case for change.
On top of that, we have the third factor, which might change urgently, which is, of course, Brexit. These issues have become more pressing because Brexit is now a fact of life and because Parliament will have many more treaties—indeed, some very complex ones—to scrutinise once we are in the situation, as we are now, of replacing EU trade agreements.
The committee worked hard on this issue and we published our report in April last year. I place on record our thanks to Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor Mark Elliott and our excellent parliamentary team of Matt Korris, Matt Byatt and Lloyd Whittaker. I am sure that my committee would want me to express our appreciation for the work they did to help us.
Our report concluded that there was a very real degree of urgency about this situation and that Parliament really needed to act quickly to deal with all these issues. One of our recommendations was that there should be a committee along the lines of the one just suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. That committee has to scrutinise treaties, as he said, but it also has a responsibility to bring to the attention of the House some of the issues that are important and have to be considered by us all.
However, as I think my noble and learned friend indicated, establishment of the committee in itself not enough. A lot depends on what happens from now on and on the Government’s attitude. Indeed, most of the successful working of the committee will be dependent on the Government’s attitude. We have had some signs of potential progress, but, again as my noble and learned friend touched on, we must make sure that there is sufficient time for the treaties committee not just to look at a treaty’s proposals but to complete its work before things come forward to the House. We are talking about very short timeframes on occasion. This is something we have to be wary of, because Parliament is being bounced into making very hasty decisions on a lot of issues at the moment, and this should not happen so far as treaties are concerned.
The second point is very important. Again, my noble and learned friend touched on this. The Government must provide more information about trade negotiations, and must do so at the appropriate time. The Constitution Committee was not naive about this. We accept that there are areas where there is sensitivity about negotiations and there are times when perhaps things will have to be withheld from the committee, but it is important that we get the balance right. So we recommended that there should be not a legal requirement for transparency but a general principle in favour of transparency throughout the treaty process—a general principle that disclosure to the committee should be the norm and that withholding information should be the exception. The Government have made some comments, some of them potentially helpful. I am sure that the new committee will seek to get the right balance. It is possible for a committee to deal with sensitive information. As someone who chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee for some years, I know that that procedure is possible.
I must highlight one other issue: the question of devolution. The Constitution Committee has on many occasions commented on the difficulties of this Government and the devolved institutions working properly. There have been many times when we have had to comment on the shortcomings of intergovernmental relations. This is a very real and current problem that will cause many difficulties. We really do worry about it. Indeed, in our most recent report on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill last week we said:
“It is extraordinary and profoundly disappointing that the official review of inter-governmental relations has yet to reach any conclusions.”
That has been going on for a very long time. We also urged the Government to publish the Dunlop review as soon as possible. We are seeing real problems in this area and the Government have not been taking the issue as urgently as they absolutely need to.
To conclude, we welcome the new committee and I welcome my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith to his role. There will be a great deal of work because of Brexit, and it is pertinent to so many areas of life. There are some important issues to contend with, as my noble and learned friend said. The sifting process is right, but we really need to get the right attitude on the part of the Government if the committee is going to be able to fulfil its role.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow two such excellent opening speeches. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has already made a considerable mark in chairing the new International Agreements Sub-Committee, as demonstrated in his speech, and its first report is one of great authority, clarity and importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the ever-excellent Constitution Committee once again produced a report of great weight and incisiveness, and just now she produced a speech to match. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, under whose chairmanship the EU Committee’s June 2019 report was produced just before I took over, but who has graciously suggested that I lead off today.
The three reports we are considering build on each other. The cornerstone is to be found at paragraph 33 of the Constitution Committee’s April 2019 report, which says:
“The current mechanisms available to Parliament to scrutinise treaties through CRAG are limited and flawed.”
No serious academic or legal voice has challenged that conclusion.
The EU Committee’s interest in the subject derived directly from our scrutiny of Brexit. For many years the committee scrutinised, to varying degrees, the EU’s exercise of treaty-making powers on behalf of the UK, via the system of document-based scrutiny. This role for EU national Parliaments and their European affairs committees has in recent years been supplemented by an enhanced role for the European Parliament. These mechanisms for parliamentary oversight and accountability, honed and developed at European level over half a century, now no longer apply in the UK. Their disappearance leaves a democratic deficit. There are many ways one could address this, but the essential fact is that the task of scrutiny has now fallen back on the Westminster Parliament, and there is a need to design, with the Government, a proportionate new approach that will apply from here on to Governments of whatever colour.
Against this backdrop, and with the blessing of the Procedure Committee, in early 2019 the EU Committee and its sub-committees embarked on the first attempt at systematic parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, within the confines of the CRaG Act. We published 22 reports on more than 50 agreements, all directly Brexit-related. We assessed them against set criteria, modelled on those used by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in scrutinising statutory instruments. The report we are debating today sets out the lessons learned from this substantial programme of work. Here, I should take a loop and thank the staff of the European Union Committee, who worked incredibly hard and, as we have already heard, to unbelievably short timetables to produce reports of outstanding quality for the House.
I go back to our 2019 report, in which our first and most important conclusion, echoing the Constitution Committee, is that
“the CRAG Act is poorly designed to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of treaties.”
As has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, it simply does not allow time for meaningful, merits-based scrutiny, let alone evidence-based analysis. The sole agreement on which we were able to take evidence was the UK-South Korea deal, and that was thanks only to the time gained from the non-Prorogation of Parliament last September.
CRaG was, after all, an Act designed to fit into a constitutional layout where the UK was a member of the EU and of all its scrutiny arrangements for new treaties. But, as has been noted, treaties can be as important as much primary legislation and with far-reaching implications: think of the European Convention on Human Rights, the World Trade Organization agreements, the forthcoming trade agreement with the United States, and many others. The post-Brexit position is that the Government can enter into such constitutionally and politically important agreements simply by exercising the royal prerogative, and that Parliament is given just 21 sitting days to rubber-stamp them at the very end of the process, just prior to formal ratification. As noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, this is not defensible.
More is needed: this is the consistent message of all three reports that we are debating. It does not necessarily require a statute but requires at least a consistent and durable understanding. A good model would be a concordat between the Government and Parliament, analogous to the very successful EU scrutiny reserve resolution. This would cover such issues as: the publication of and consultation on negotiating objectives; the sharing of information with relevant parliamentary committees, either publicly or—as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—confidentially, as negotiations progress; and undertakings to allow committees sufficient time to publish their conclusions and recommendations, and to take those views into account. I too feel strongly that it would need to provide for meaningful engagement with the devolved Governments and legislatures. It would have to cover issues such as amendments to agreements and those agreements, including memoranda of understanding, which do not fall within the terms of the CRaG Act. It would also define exceptions: most importantly, for instance, when for special reasons the Government need to bypass the full parliamentary scrutiny. I would be grateful for the Minister’s initial comments on this line of thinking.
We too read the positive notes from the previous Government and the Department for International Trade, in their Command Paper of February 2019, outlining their plans for engagement. We had excellent contacts throughout 2019 at the official level with the FCO, the DIT and DExEU. I should take another loop to thank the officials concerned for the courteous and efficient way in which they came back to us, understanding the timing difficulties for us in producing our reports. They never failed. More recently, however, we have seen rather limited progress from the Government in engaging with our recommendations.
I hope for a positive statement from the Minister today in response to the unanimous view of our three committees—a common view, based on careful consideration of the issues and substantial practical experience. None of us wishes to tie the Government’s hands or to intrude into confidential negotiations. But in today’s world, given the complexity and variety of international agreements, we need structures to provide appropriate democratic oversight and accountability. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to design those structures. We do not need to ape the existing European Parliament structure or that of any other institution. We can devise our own structure and processes to suit the needs of our Government, our Parliament and our people. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a genuine privilege to follow three such highly respected chairs and, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank them for their chairmanship. I also thank the members of their committees, and the predecessor committees, for their reasoned reports and characteristically sensible and proactive recommendations.
If the reporting in the Financial Times is correct and we see on Wednesday proposals to renege on treaty commitments for joint decision-making, in an agreement not yet a year old, this is a sobering backcloth to a debate on treaty-making and the ultimate trustworthiness of a UK Government in implementing treaties. It shows that this is not just a purely constitutional or theoretical debate but one of practical politics—ones that affect people’s livelihoods across the country.
As all three Lords Committee reports made clear, there are two areas without contention. The first it that is has always been and will continue to be the responsibility of government—not Parliament—to open, negotiate and sign international agreements; the second is that these vary in complexity, scope and significance. But the consensus among the committees, if not the Government, is expressed in paragraph 33 of the report quoted by the noble Earl. He read the first part of that paragraph. It goes on to say:
“Reform is required to enable Parliament to conduct effective scrutiny of the Government’s treaty actions, irrespective of the consequences of Brexit.”
All committees have proposed improvements to the process and some progress has been welcomed, as indicated, such as in Command Paper 63 on trade agreements, but in other areas more improvements can be made. I shall focus the remainder of my time on trade agreements, while my colleagues will cover the wider breadth of the reports and the consequences of their recommendations.
Whereas the committees did not propose that Parliament extends its authority by resolving to approve a trade negotiating mandate, and then an agreement, the House has done so. A clear majority of the House voted for this in the Trade Bill last year. No doubt this will be debated tomorrow, during the Second Reading of another Trade Bill. While a Motion has not been laid relating to Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to withhold support for a trade agreement, in March last year I moved the first Motions in the House in accordance with Section 21: to extend the scrutiny period for the agreement establishing an economic partnership agreement between the eastern and southern African states. There were similar debates on the Faroe Islands and Switzerland agreements. During the debates, the then Minister apologised for a lack of consultation with the devolved Administrations and committed to changing procedures, and clarified areas of concern that the EU sub-committee had raised in its report, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Without the debate that I secured, these commitments could not have been given to the House. I pointed out that it should not really be down to an individual Member to secure Motions, but I am glad I did. I hope the Minister will respond positively on implementing committee recommendations to change this.
Asserting greater parliamentary authority over the setting of negotiating mandates, then approval of the agreements, does not reduce the ability to exercise prerogative powers. It actually strengthens it—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to this—as we saw for the United States and the EU. In the two biggest economies in the world, which we are negotiating with, there is recognition that trade agreements now go well beyond their traditional roles, such as on bilateral tariff rates. In both economies, there is a vote on the text of the agreement. They also have a process for setting the mandate; we have neither. In both the US and EU, the relevant committees can be provided, through agreed protocols, negotiating documents and classified negotiating texts. This was alluded to in the UK Government’s Command Paper but was subsequently watered down. Clarity from the Minister on that would be most welcome.
It thus makes sense to build on the dualist system, and for Parliament to approve the agreements before the process of seeking to support their implementation into domestic law. This is one area where we would see progress. Given the concerns about what we may see on Wednesday regarding the UK internal market process, this is even more important. I hope that the Minister will move beyond the current Government’s position and act to deliver on some of the recommendations from these very sensible committee reports.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the consequences of the imminent prospect of the UK having an independent trade policy at the end of the year have been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
As has been pointed out, the EU Parliament has been the principal scrutiny body for the many treaties and international agreements negotiated and ratified by the EU, and it is clear that Parliament should now have the additional powers to ensure additional scrutiny of the treaties and international agreements that the UK will enter into in future. This is all the more important because the nature of debate and scrutiny of all legislation in the current living-with-Covid environment has been reduced to a substantial restriction of accountability to Parliament and of the ways in which we would normally hold the Government of the day to account. However, Covid-19 and living in a post-Covid-19 world is not the principal argument in favour of further change to the CRaG framework.
In its excellent report, the Constitution Committee rightly observed that treaty scrutiny, under the function of the Government under royal prerogative and subject to the negative resolution process, has not moved with the times. Treaties now cover far more than broad principles of international relations, encompassing detailed public policy issues—issues that must be subject to detailed scrutiny by Parliament.
For example, one of the sectors in which I specialise, sports policy, is relevant in this context because it is the field in which the EU’s responsibilities were first introduced into treaty obligations under the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009. This demonstrates clearly the way in which treaties have now descended into the detail of sectoral policy. In the immediate aftermath of the Lisbon treaty, a specific budget line was established for the first time under the Erasmus+ programme. Article 165 referred to the specificity of sport and Article 165(2)(b) refers to
“developing the European dimension in sport by”,
inter alia,
“protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest”—
a catch-all clause that could be interpreted to cover the criminalisation of doping, for example.
The Bosman case, the tripartite agreement—which is critical to the free, unimpeded movement of racehorses across the borders between France, Ireland and the United Kingdom; without it, Cheltenham and the Derby meetings would be decimated—international agreements that cover competitive professional football, the criteria under which players can move from club to club and the number of players permitted under the Cotonou agreement to play in individual professional sports in this country are all covered by treaty and are critical to the continued smooth running of professional sport. Any changes will have far-reaching consequences.
Where treaties and international agreements continue to descend the political waterfall into the minutiae of sectoral policy, I ask the Government to consider going considerably further than recommending that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act provides adequate scrutiny. Systematic parliamentary consideration beyond committee consideration is essential as we move forward, so that Parliament can undertake its key role of holding the Executive to account. All three reports are very much welcomed. I hope that the Government’s response will be sympathetic and urgent.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lady Taylor and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith on their reports. They provide an excellent basis for the future if the Government are prepared to listen.
I am a member of the EU Select Committee and I chair the EU Sub-Committee on Services. I also chaired the former EU Sub-Committee on Internal Markets. We scrutinised a number of rollover treaties, such as those with South Korea and Switzerland, and experienced the weaknesses of the current CRaG Act procedures. The CRaG Act needs reform, even though the Government have stated that they are not minded to do it. I agree with the Constitution Committee’s conclusion that the current system of treaty scrutiny is “anachronistic and inadequate”.
An article in Parliament Research entitled Treaty Scrutiny: A New Challenge for Parliament, said that the CRaG Act
“relegates Parliament to a ‘weak form of sign off at the end of the process’.”
Parliament has a responsibility to develop its scrutiny capacity, even within the confines of the CRaG Act. This House has responded with the setting up of the International Agreements Committee, which will aim in principle to be open and transparent and will have a good chance of securing time for debates on significant treaties.
We have had warm words from the Government about drawing on the extensive experience and expertise of both Houses, but we should not be used just as a reference library. Treaties, whether on trade, the environment, protecting our public health service or jobs and employment standards, directly affect our daily lives, which is why parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are so vital. It is also why keeping faith with the devolved Administrations is so important. They have a legitimate interest in any agreement reached on their behalf in terms of both policy and devolved competencies. It might just help to keep the United Kingdom together.
The content of future treaties is for another debate. However, the House might be interested to know that one of the witnesses to the Internal Markets Sub-Committee produced a complete table of contents of modern free trade agreements—a massive piece of work. Countries bind themselves to various restrictions, standards or regulation in order to reach a deal. We should remember that when we hear all the stories of the UK freebooting on the high seas.
Incidentally, all such treaties contain some reference to level playing fields or non-regression clauses. Disguise it as you will, any Brexit deal will have to cover this—as will all other treaties. The irony is that we are applying for membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, where the UK will be expected to conform to some kind of restrictions on standards, dumping or dispute resolution. If it is half a world away, it is okay; if it is a country within half a day’s travel, apparently it is not okay.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee. I welcome the fact that our report is being debated and that it is being debated alongside two excellent reports, which have been equally well presented.
The point made by both committees is that treaties now extend far more into the daily lives of people than many did in the past, particularly when their primary concern in the past was either tariffs or international boundaries of countries other than our own. People who do not know their Ponsonby rule from their CRaG will find their daily lives affected on issues that have been mentioned, such as standards and environmental rules of the kind that appear in many trade agreements.
That is one part of the background. Of course, there are lobby groups that know perfectly well what is involved and are very active when trade negotiations are going on. We are about to lose a much higher degree of systematic parliamentary engagement with and accountability for treaty-making in the areas for which the EU had responsibility, notably trade. The European Parliament carried out that scrutiny vigorously, with a degree of engagement and information not to be found in Westminster’s scrutiny of treaties. That will go, and when it has gone, we will not be able to control our laws in the sense of those other than the Executive controlling our laws. They will be subject to much less democratic control than they were before.
Clearly, treaty-making is a function of the Executive, but they must be an accountable Executive, subject to oversight continuously through the process. One thing that happens when Executives are subject to scrutiny is that the question is asked during the process: will Parliament wear this? Is this something that we can get through or will it be opposed? Will we have to rely on loyalty and the fact that people do not want a general election at the moment to ensure that we get it through? It is at that level that our treaty scrutiny has tended to be, I am afraid.
Governments worry that demanding effective parliamentary scrutiny prevents the Executive doing their job, but that clearly was not the case with the European Commission, which had to accept detailed scrutiny by the European Parliament. It comes strangely from those who thought that the Commission was too powerful to ignore the fact that when we want to create a system here, there is no reason we should not have that level of accountability.
We have argued in our report for a Westminster alternative. Indeed, the process has been going on because existing and newly created committees have started to assume that role. There are some things which a trade scrutiny committee can do itself; there are others which might be better done by a committee which specialises in a particular field. But the committee structure of the two Houses of Parliament really needs to engage with this task.
There is some government recognition in their response of the need for improvement, but the rejection of the presumption of transparency is a mistake. It is not that everything by law would have to be transparent; the working assumption would be that there was transparency, backed, where necessary, by confidential discussion with the committee—which, again, featured in the European Parliament, which must be just as likely to be subject to the pressures around leaking that we worry about here.
If noble Lords want to know what the Government really think, they should look at page 8 of their response, where they make this very generous offer:
“If a third country’s domestic procedures mean it will publish a draft treaty at an earlier stage, then the Government will also look to do similar to ensure that the UK Parliament is not receiving less information than the Parliaments of negotiating partners.
In other words, we might get some information if some other country decides to release it and we then have to. The pointer has to be shifted towards real transparency, with full recognition of the need, which any negotiating body has, for a degree of confidentiality. I think the system in Parliament is capable of accomplishing that and we should give it the opportunity to do so, when these things have such a profound effect on the lives of the people we serve.
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. Colleagues may be relieved that, having signed one of the reports under discussion today—and the remarkable range of consensus is striking—this will, I believe, be the last duty arising from my seven years of chairing the EU Committee. This stretch was almost bisected by the Brexit referendum and, incidentally, amounted in total to roughly the same time I spent as a Minister in the other place. I remain unsure in which role I acted as poacher and in which as gamekeeper. Today I want to emphasise the importance of effective treaty scrutiny.
First, and emphatically not as a formality, I record my support for the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has succeeded me as chair, and for colleagues across the House who give their time and formidable expertise, together with my appreciation of our admirable parliamentary staff, whose support has been unfailing. This enabled us swiftly to assume on behalf of the House the additional role of scrutinising continuity trade deals. The weakness of the CRaG Act procedure became quickly apparent. We have fallen behind the scrutiny mechanism available to most of our fellow democracies, to the extent that if we achieve a post-Brexit deal with the EU, ratification could be as much of interest to any EU regional parliament as to this one, although of course the issues today are of much wider application even than Brexit.
Effective treaty scrutiny is an important technical issue, but equally one of high political sensitivity. In my time in the EU Committee I have experienced a variety of poor responses from the Government, ranging from the casual to the downright obstructive. In fairness, sometimes these have been interspersed with more positive engagement with Ministers and contacts between various officials. I believe that scrutiny remains an essential component of good governance—just as, if I may say, Covid testing is essential in handling the pandemic, even if it sometimes reveals inconvenient facts. My strong advice—and it is reflected in all three reports being considered today—is for us collectively to be ready to use our elbows to expand the role of treaty scrutiny. It needs to take place across the whole spectrum, from consideration of negotiating mandates to final ratification and the associated implementing legislation, and to be based on the principle of transparency wherever possible.
There will be a predictable response from government —as a former Minister, I know the playbook—along the lines of cramping government discretion, creating diplomatic embarrassments, and so forth. I recognise that these are sometimes entirely valid objections, but they are not universal ones. If necessary, we are mature enough here to receive sensitive material appropriately without betraying confidences, and we have the collective expertise to make a positive contribution to the national interest. The admirable report of the new sub-committee shows also the need for the implications for the devolved Administrations, Crown Dependencies and other stakeholders to be understood, and it gives a flavour of the growing complexity as treaties evolve from the traditionally purely diplomatic into trade agreements which themselves may also carry other, wider implications.
Finally, although this is not strictly an issue of direct treaty scrutiny, I am sure the House will wish to remain alert in the analysis of the impact of outcomes arising from treaties on our economy and society over the years. To judge by breaking overnight news, we may also wish to interest ourselves in the Government’s compliance with international law in respect of the treaties they have concluded.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend. We owe him a great deal for these deliberations. I was a happy member of the EU External Affairs Sub-Committee until a year ago, when, under new Brexit jurisdiction, I entered the jungle of international agreements. These are predominantly trade deals of some complexity. I record my thanks to the clerks and professional advisers who are steering our treaties committee through them.
The German expression “Handel ist Wandel”—trade means change—has been used to describe the positive economic and political changes in eastern Europe, but the wheel may have turned as applied to the ongoing US negotiations with China, featuring strong sanctions and withdrawal from Huawei. Addressing human rights or climate change through trade with some countries now seems inconceivable, but we need to maintain standards, especially with the countries we already know and relate to.
Our Government have embarked positively on several new deals simultaneously, the most critical being with the EU itself. There I believe we are dragging our feet, given the historic importance of this partnership and its importance to other agreements. It is a subject which needs urgent debate, especially if the Northern Ireland agreement is threatened, as we heard today. I am glad that this will come up tomorrow. Every day we get wooden answers from Ministers while vital mutual questions of health, agriculture, climate change and security remain unresolved.
Then there are the other agreements: the important but half-baked US deal; and the more promising agreements with Japan, Australia and New Zealand and, through them, a possible one with the Pacific. It is an ambitious programme to say the least and it is vital that Parliament and the stakeholders concerned keep abreast of it. Using the CRaG framework, as we have heard, has been a good start, encouraged by a number of Select Committee reports. Our new committee, acting in conjunction with the Commons International Trade Committee, has already received evidence on the US and Japan deals, and has heard from both the Secretaries of State. It has also published a report on working practices. In that report there are important recommendations, already mentioned, on transparency, timescale and the need for trust between Parliament and the Executive.
It is important to recognise that the Government have in these early stages co-operated quite closely with the committee, but I repeat the need for the FCO to pay more attention to the human rights sections in the EMs, difficult as this will be. We have had reassurances from our Human Rights Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and he may well refer to these today.
My background being with development NGOs, I am also concerned that NGOs and lobbyists have proper access to information. These days, there are at least as many experts among NGOs as there are in government; in fact, many of them have moved into government. Of course, there are also confidential issues which have to be discussed inside Parliament. The Trade Bill in the Commons was highly disappointing from the point of view of our report. It could have done more to reassure the public as well as Parliament. Jonathan Djanogly and others were trying to insist, through reasonable amendments, that the Government should provide proper reporting on the content of agreements interlined for negotiation and ratification. I did not speak on this at Second Reading and I am using this opportunity to reiterate those complaints made by Members of Parliament.
I end by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for presenting our report so well, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for leading for the European Union Select Committee, and the Minister for replying and for the positive remarks that I know he is about to make.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I share with other noble Lords an appreciation of the excellent way in which these reports have been introduced, not least by the chairman of the International Agreements Committee, on which I serve. I was formerly a member of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee. We have looked at the scrutiny of treaties, including the rollover treaties, over the course of the last year. I will reiterate a number of points that have been made but, first, this is not simply about asking the Government to come up with solutions. It is also about Members of this House, and the other place, making sure that we have a really effective system. I urge that the International Agreements Committee should, at the earliest possible moment, be given its own status, rather than be a sub-committee of the EU Committee, since much of what we do is not about the European Union any more. I know that there are positive discussions between the International Agreements Committee and other committees, including the International Trade Select Committee in the House of Commons, and this is important.
We have to make sure that the excellent reputation which this House achieved for its EU scrutiny, not least under my noble friend Lord Boswell, is replicated in our scrutiny of treaties. Speaking as a former Leader of the House of Commons, I know that we cannot rely upon that House to scrutinise in the detail necessary to expose the issues relating to treaties; this House must do that.
When we do that, we will rely on the Government being transparent. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, regret that, in their reply to the Constitution Committee, the Government did not accept a presumption of transparency—not a requirement, nor an obligation in all circumstances, just a presumption. They could yet shift on that ground. As the noble Lord rightly said, and our committee has said in more recent discussions, we want to see the initialled and signed agreements with Japan when the Diet in Japan sees them. What the Government have said about seeing them when third countries see them is, I am afraid, an indication of their lack of willingness to put their own views forward.
As my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has repeatedly said in our committee, transparency in these trade negotiations is often a strength for the negotiators themselves. The requirements for ratification by the Diet in Japan are quite restrictive and onerous. I declare an interest as chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, which hears a great deal from our Japanese friends about their requirements to secure parliamentary approval and to run to a parliamentary timetable. I see no evidence that this has impeded or restricted Japan’s effectiveness in arriving at what they wish to see from international trade negotiations.
I hope that we will continue to have a positive approach by Ministers, not only by repeating their commitments in February 2019 but going beyond them in some of the areas discussed in our report. We have had excellent co-operation from Ministers to date; I hope that we will be able to build on that in the months and years ahead.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the chairs of each of these committees agree on so much. We are presented with a unique opportunity to change the balance between the Executive and Parliament in this respect. For many centuries, the elite and the people of Britain seemed to agree that treaties were a matter for Kings and not for Parliament. That changed very slightly in 2010, with the CRaG Act, but my experience, like that of so many speakers, is that that Act is not fit for purpose in these post- Brexit circumstances. When I was my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s predecessor, we started to look at some of the new, post-Brexit, rollover treaties. That was not an easy process; we were improvising. It showed me what an enormously complex job this is, and how CRaG is not really fit for purpose. We were, of course, involved only in looking at the final texts. In reality, the House of Lords had no leverage and the Commons had just 21 days before ratification to comment on an already agreed text. That is not scrutiny; nor does it confer parliamentary legitimacy on the outcome.
I commend the EU Select Committee for setting up the new International Agreements Committee, but that has to be seen as a temporary expedient. We need much more leverage, and that means the involvement of a new, powerful parliamentary committee throughout the process, from setting a negotiating mandate, receiving reports back through the negotiations, and scrutiny and comment on the final text. We also have to take account of the differential role, under CRaG—indeed, under our parliamentary system—of the Lords and the Commons. It has been my view throughout that the optimal parliamentary scrutiny of treaty negotiations should combine legitimacy and expertise and that there should, therefore, be a joint Commons and Lords committee on treaties. This should probably have equal numbers, but a chair from the Commons, and include significant expertise from this House. It should report back to both Houses, which would each have the right to debate and propose amendments to the treaty, although only the Commons could block it or alter it entirely. There is also a need to involve the devolved Administrations in this process.
As my noble friend Lady Taylor and other noble Lords have said, there would have to be confidentiality and security provisions, as there are currently with the joint Intelligence and Security Committee. However, that joint structure is the best form of scrutiny, and this House should propose it. I appreciate that some future Foreign Secretaries and some future—and possibly current—mandarins and political advisers may see this as a constraint and a chore, but in many respects a powerful parliamentary committee could strengthen the hand of the Government of the day, both in negotiating with other countries and in delivering domestic acceptance and ratification of the treaty process. It would help both those processes if Parliament could be seen to be fully involved and to have the final say.
It is Brexit that has triggered our attention to this. Many of our important treaties in the last 40 years have been negotiated for us by the EU, but not all. In those 40 years, parliamentarians, including British Members of the European Parliament, have had a say on those treaties. However, that is true not only of the European Parliament; the US Congress negotiates treaties, particularly ones on trade. It also happens in Canada, Australia and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, in Japan. These are countries which are now in our sights for new bilateral trade and other arrangements. The level of parliamentary scrutiny has, in many different ways, been significantly higher than that provided by CRaG. We now have the opportunity to change that.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, treaties are legally binding on signatory states. They have a serious impact on citizens and therefore should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as all other domestic legislation. That this is not the case at present arises from adherence to the 100 year-old Ponsonby rule and weaknesses in the subsequent CRaG Act. CRaG offers little new to help Parliament scrutinise treaties or hold power more accountable. Despite this, the Government have reiterated their satisfaction, both in debate in the Chamber and in their response to the Constitution Committee report, with the current legislation, while conceding the desirability of greater information sharing in advance of CRaG procedures.
However, the essential concern remains that new treaties and treaty change can occur in the absence of appropriate scrutiny. This makes it impossible to have a current picture of UK international obligations, including decisions on any amendments to and/or derogations from ratified international conventions. The main scrutiny body prior to Brexit was the EU Parliament, which had considerable powers, including one of veto. As from January 2021, treaties in trade as well as non-trade areas, such as environment security and extradition, will be in abundance. My concerns relate to current and future draft legislation that impinges on human rights treaties ratified by the UK. Some current policy in these non-trade areas would seem to necessitate amendments to treaties on human rights protection. If the existing treaties have to be amended, what mechanisms are there to review the process?
For example, the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill would create a presumption against prosecution for even severe allegations of torture and ill treatment overseas. This would create a two-tier system, in that it would introduce a statute of limitation for all crimes committed by military or other personnel overseas, except those that entail a sexual offence. In brief, those suspected of war crimes, including murder and torture, will benefit from the five-year limitation, but those accused of sexual crimes will be exempt. This is incompatible with the UK’s obligations under Article 7 of the UN Convention against Torture, for which there is no impunity. The Bill also includes a requirement that the UK Government consider derogating from Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, military personnel would be exempted from the obligation to act within the international rules-based system.
Furthermore, the recently introduced 2019 principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas will undermine UK treaty obligations under the UN Convention against Torture. These principles give Ministers discretion to authorise UK actions where there is a serious risk of torture, and in so doing are inconsistent with the absolute non-derogable prohibition on torture under Article 2 of the convention. The report sets out strong recommendations that emphasise the need for additional scrutiny in advance of the CRaG procedures and the establishment of a scrutiny committee that harnesses expertise and the work of other related committees.
The International Agreements Sub-Committee, set up in April this year, is a welcome and valuable addition. However, there has so far been a lack of political will on the part of the Government to agree to a more general presumption in favour of transparency, including the advance publication of implementation plans on UN recommendations and a more co-ordinated approach to monitoring and reporting implementation and impact assessments. Until this happens, Parliament does not have the necessary tools to do its job of scrutiny.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as a number of your Lordships have said, this is an important debate. That is particularly so because the Constitution Committee concluded—other Members have quoted this, too:
“The current mechanisms available to Parliament to scrutinise treaties through CRAG are limited and flawed. Reform is required to enable Parliament to conduct effective scrutiny of the Government’s treaty actions, irrespective of the consequences of Brexit.”
It would be difficult to be clearer than that.
Before continuing on that theme, I will comment on the Covid crisis, because there is a lesson to be learned. Everyone is agreed that, after it is all over—whenever that might be—the new normal will not be the old usual. The same is true about the post-Brexit world, which will not be the same as the one we left when we joined the EEC some 50 years ago. I do not believe that this has been thought about sufficiently, either at the time of the referendum or since.
Since that time, as a number of your Lordships have said, the world has changed significantly, in ways that are in no way connected with Brexit. Socially, economically and technologically, the world is a much more interdependent and hence more cross-jurisdictional place than it was then. This will not change unless we want to evolve into some kind of North Korea.
We must remember that, because over recent years the EU has negotiated on our account in many international fora and the Government have been deeply engaged in the Council of Ministers, there will be a great deal more treaties than more than 50 years ago. As has already been said, Governments are always accountable to Parliament, as much as in exercising the royal prerogative as in dealing with domestic policy and legislation. There should be no equivocation about that. Intergovernmental agreements by their very nature cannot deal with the minutiae or the detail and complexity required to put necessary provisions on to the domestic statute book. The frameworks within which that is done are set and mandated outside the jurisdiction, but they define domestic legislation.
Furthermore, matters agreed in intergovernmental negotiations can be implemented in more than one way, and how that is done is a matter for the UK Parliament. In short, I believe that Parliament’s legitimate concerns encompass not only domestic legislation but the terms of any international agreements which will affect the UK statute book. In terms of Parliament being able to exercise its role, the existing arrangements, based on a Hobson’s choice between approving and rejecting an agreement and, frequently, a similar choice in respect of implementing agreed terms through statutory instruments, are essentially a parody of parliamentary government and, as such, unacceptable, not least because I have been told that, on occasion, Whips’ Offices have been known to deploy methods of persuasion that gangmasters might be proud of.
I spent 10 years in the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. The scrutiny given to the implementation of decisions taken in both the Commission and the Council and in respect of international agreements was on an entirely different level from that seen here, as a number of your Lordships have pointed out. While it is far from a perfect template or precedent for what we might do here, it draws attention to and highlights the shortcomings of our domestic arrangements and procedures. Checks and balances have always been an integral part of our constitution for hundreds of years, and delay where, in the last analysis, the House of Commons can insist on its way is foursquare within our constitutional practices and conditions.
When we joined the EEC, Sir John Foster led the evolution of a new way of doing parliamentary business. We now need another Sir John Foster, or a series of Sir John Fosters, to take another root-and-branch look at where we go from here and how to plot a way forward.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be back physically in your Lordships’ House, despite the hostile environment that the risk-averse House authorities have created for us. It is also a pleasure to take part in this debate on a trio of interesting reports from committees of your Lordships’ House.
I particularly welcome the Constitution Committee’s acknowledgement that treaty-making is a function of government exercised through the royal prerogative. I also welcome the fact that the committee did not recommend that our Parliament copied the European Parliament’s procedures.
There is undoubtedly at present a greater appetite in Parliament for detailed involvement in treaties. The Government responded positively to that with the new procedures for FTAs set out in their February 2019 Command Paper, and I understand that that broadly remains government policy. But the three reports being debated show that there is an insatiable beast lurking in the committees of your Lordships’ House. This beast wants more information and more involvement on more aspects of treaty activity.
The beast also has the CRaG Act in its sights. That is clear from all the reports we are considering, although the treaty sub-committee’s report pragmatically accepts that there will be no immediate change to the CRaG Act and has wisely concentrated on its working procedures. The Ponsonby rule, which underpins the CRaG Act, was quite good enough for Parliament in the days before we joined the EU. It should be quite good enough for Parliament now that we are a free-standing nation again. I can see no need to change the Act.
In particular, given that new FTAs will be discussed with Parliament at various stages of their evolution, the 21 sitting days, which is practically five elapsed weeks, seem to provide an adequate window for final scrutiny prior to ratification. It may well be that your Lordships’ House needs to work in more agile ways to accommodate that timeframe, but the starting point need not be that more time is required.
I believe that the root cause of this desire to spend more time scrutinising treaties is a belief in your Lordships’ House that Brexit is a bad thing and that everything the Government do as a consequence of it is potentially bad. Even when our new pro-Brexit Peers arrive, that will likely remain the dominant view of your Lordships’ House. I hope that the House will continue its journey through the various stages of grief over Brexit and arrive at the final stage of acceptance. I predict that at that stage the appetite for spending significant time on treaties will diminish. We will of course still need a treaties committee in your Lordships’ House, unless a Joint Committee is set up. But, like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I hope that it will be a fully fledged Select Committee, not a mere sub-committee of the EU Committee, which will itself of course recede in importance as we start to live in a post-Brexit world.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is quite rare to be able to respond directly to another Member in Grand Committee, unlike some other parliamentary business in normal times when we can jump up and respond. I had planned to start by talking about this dystopian world in which the working practice seems to be to sit in little booths—we could be in a call centre, calling people to ask, “Were you mis-sold a treaty? Did you sign up to the European Communities Act 1972 by mistake?” For people watching on television or merely reading Hansard, it is perhaps not quite clear how the Grand Committee is working in the current hybrid system. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to it as a hostile environment. That might be the only point of her speech with which I agreed.
I obviously fit into the category of noble Lords who are rather disappointed that the United Kingdom has left the European Union. However, I do not believe for one moment that the need to scrutinise treaties and the importance we are giving to that this afternoon is simply because we are leaving the European Union and Members are unhappy about that. It is precisely the opposite. The clarion call of the Vote Leave campaign was “Vote leave, take back control”. I do not believe for one moment that the people who voted on 23 June 2016, or in the general election last year, thought that they were voting for Mr Dominic Cummings to set the agenda, nor that taking back control meant that Parliament would become supine. The idea that Parliament should become more supine the further we get from membership of the European Union is quite wrong. The role of your Lordships’ House is as a revising Chamber, but it is also to hold the Government to account. A fortiori, it is the role of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. What each of these reports is saying is that, in the context of a post-Brexit world where international treaties have ever-greater scope, it is essential that Parliament plays that role.
Now, it is not clear what the current Prime Minister thinks about scrutiny. There has been reference to the previous Government’s comments in February 2019. The Lords Library also notes that, in response to the Constitution Committee’s report of July last year, Theresa May’s Government said that they thought that the CRaG Act remained a “viable legal framework”. However, they agreed that information sharing between the Government and Parliament could be improved, and they committed to
“engaging with whatever parliamentary scrutiny structures the Houses implement”.
That is our role.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, rightly said earlier, it should not be for government to decide which amendments are scrutinised. It should not be for government to set the agenda on scrutiny or set the timeframe; it should be for Parliament to do that. Parliament is not some beast seeking information; Parliament is looking to make sure that any treaties that the United Kingdom Government sign are in the best interests of this country. However, looking at the changes currently being suggested for the withdrawal agreement legislation that went through last year after extensive scrutiny, one might wonder whether this Government take very much notice at all.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, wrote in an excellent article earlier this year in The House:
“The Treaties Sub-Committee will be vital in ensuring trade deals and international agreements are scrutinised”.
He stated clearly that
“the Government will negotiate important trade agreements with major economies around the world. These agreements need scrutiny as they have a direct effect on people’s lives in the UK … Treaty scrutiny is a crucial … area for Parliament”,
particularly post Brexit. He also said that, as we know:
“Previously, much of the work negotiating international agreements was … scrutinised in detail by the European Parliament, including UK MEPs. On the domestic front”
the excellent, world-renowned and respected
“European committees … scrutinised the decisions made by UK Ministers at the main EU decision making body—the Council of Ministers. These mechanisms have now come to an end … following our exit from the European Union on 31 January 2020 … At present … under UK law, treaty scrutiny at Westminster only takes place once agreements have already been negotiated and signed.”
This is not the case in other countries; I will come on to that later.
Almost every speaker has mentioned the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The noble Earl stated that it provides Parliament with “very restricted” powers, that the House of Lords cannot block anything—although it can pass a resolution to delay things—and that
“there is no mechanism by which Parliament can refuse to consent to an agreement that it thinks is not in the country’s best interest.”
Surely parliamentary scrutiny is absolutely crucial, particularly over the next year when, as the noble Earl explains,
“we expect the Government to negotiate important trade agreements with the United States, Japan and other major economies. These agreements may affect jobs, and the price and availability of goods in the shops.”
The report, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties, outlines the situation clearly:
“The UK is party to over 14,000 treaties and normally negotiates around 30 new treaties each year”—
indeed, many more now that we are looking down the road. It states that everything
“is based on the Ponsonby rule, established nearly 100 years ago and subsequently set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG).”
Really, this needs to be reformed. All three reports address the shortcomings in Parliament’s scrutiny of treaties and recommend that this new treaty scrutiny Select Committee be established. That is going to be excellent.
No one denies that the treaty function is a significant function of government, but Parliament’s scrutiny processes have not kept up. As many noble Lords have said—including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, just now—on the role of Parliament, we are the guardians of the nation. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for all the excellent work that he has done. On scrutiny of international agreements and lessons learned—again, they have emphasised all the points that we made earlier. The impact of international agreements does not necessarily end on signature.
On the Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices report, it is excellent that the sub-committee has now been established and effective scrutiny is now required. But will the devolved nations be consulted, as well as other departments, apart from the Department for International Trade? In February 2019, it had a report that said clearly that there was a strong and effective role for Parliament in scrutinising our trade policy and free trade agreements. It said:
“Our departure from the EU does not change the fundamental constitutional principles that underpin the negotiation of international treaties, including FTAs”,
and that it would
“draw on the expertise of Parliament”.
On international comparisons, can the Minister confirm something to us? We keep talking about the Australian points-based system and an Australia-style FTA. Countries such as Australia and the United States give clearly defined roles to their legislatures as part of the process of negotiating and concluding treaties. In the UK Parliament, can we provide equal scrutiny?
To conclude, with the difficult precedent of the withdrawal agreement from the European Union, we must not underestimate the challenges ahead. This is where the expertise of our House comes to bear, and the Government should make full use of it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, at last in a Grand Committee meeting we are having a real debate, and on three excellent reports, the recommendations of which I agree with, particularly the one from the Constitution Committee. However, I am not as optimistic as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others, that these will be accepted by the Government. This is a Government who currently see the House of Commons as no more than an electoral college for choosing the Prime Minister. Look at the way they treat this House—suggesting that we might move to York and appointing Russian oligarchs to our membership. Does that show confidence in the role of this House as an effective revising Chamber? I certainly do not think so.
As the reports say, the current process for parliamentary scrutiny, at 21 days, is not enough anyway. With all the treaties that we are now having to deal with because of our unfortunate exit from the European Union, it is certainly not enough, as we move towards an increasing and looming disaster. I support the committees’ recommendations to establish a parliamentary treaty review group to examine treaties, to refer them to Select Committees for scrutiny and to create opportunity for parliamentary debate. Like my noble friend Lord Whitty, I think it should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. It should have the status of the Intelligence and Security Committee but not the way that it is appointed. It should be appointed or elected by both Houses.
As others have said, and I have said in the past—and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, emphasised—the devolved Administrations must be consulted, particularly on areas where they have a devolved responsibility. I look forward to hearing what we get from the Government in response from the Minister in relation to that.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on when and how the Government will implement the recommendations of this committee, including with regard to the devolved Administrations. I, for one, will be watching very carefully, as I am sure will the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and a number of others on this side of the House, to see whether the words that we hear today are followed up by actions relevant to those words.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was struck by the quotation from Walter Bagehot’s volume, The English Constitution, in paragraph 8 of the most recent report we are debating. He clearly stated 150 years ago:
“Treaties are quite as important as most laws, and to require the elaborate assent of representative assemblies to every word of the law, and not to consult them even as to the essence of the treaty, is prima facie ludicrous.”
This is not a new issue. Long before the huge expansion of treaties and international agreements that we have seen since 1945, 19th-century constitutional authorities considered Parliament’s role in scrutinising treaties before and after they had been signed to be inadequate. Bagehot saw Crown prerogative as unjustified and outdated on treaties long before any of us were born.
The Vote Leave campaign fought the 2016 referendum with a promise to restore parliamentary sovereignty. This Vote Leave Government are now determined instead to restore executive sovereignty, and to put Parliament back in its box. Yesterday and today, No. 10 has been briefing that UK sovereignty entitles the Government unilaterally to reinterpret international agreements that they have recently signed. Treaties limit national sovereignty. If you assert an absolutist interpretation of sovereignty, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has stated in recent speeches, no other Government will trust you to observe international agreements.
There are those on the hard right of American law and politics who deny that international law can override American decisions because of the exceptional nature of the US constitution. But however exceptional our Government think England is, they should be wary of undermining trust in our observance of agreements, whether on Northern Ireland, human rights or commercial regulation. If our Government assert their unilateral sovereignty, no deal with the EU will be followed by no deals with a lot of other countries.
Nine months ago, the Conservative manifesto promised to
“look at the broader aspects of our constitution”
and
“set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission”.
No. 10 briefings now suggest that the Government have also made a U-turn on this and instead want only to address specific judicial and other issues. But the scale of the transformation of our international obligations and commitments, now we have left the European Union, requires adjustments in our constitutional arrangements which any Government committed to the maintenance of constitutional democracy should address.
The reports we are debating also note that the issues to be covered in future trade arrangements will require an extension of co-determination with the devolved Governments if we are to avoid drifting into a position where England emerges from a broken union, sovereign over only a shrunken country. In the light of her speech, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that constitutional arrangements which may suit your own Government when you are in power must be strong enough to work when other Governments are in power.
The Prime Minister looks to Australia and New Zealand as models for our future relationship with the European Union, as well as for recruits to advise the Government. The Parliaments of both countries have trade committees which play “a significant role”, as Alexander Downer told the Constitution Committee. Our Government should not resist this Parliament gaining similar significance in scrutinising treaties.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the committees and their chairs for their hard work, expertise and excellent reports. In my view, it is only right that any trade deal or agreement has to result from proper vetting, not just voting. Scrutiny does not mean mutiny. The Government do not need to fear that the direction they are sailing in will be hijacked by a rebellious crew. On the contrary, scrutiny provides opportunity. It allows the UK Parliament the chance to examine closely, and influence positively, trade and other international agreements. After all, this is in keeping with the whole rationale of Brexit.
Transparency is vital because treaties will directly affect our daily lives. The Government have already started discussing important trade agreements with America, Japan and other major economies. These agreements will affect jobs, services, prices and the availability of goods in our shops. As we know, Parliament’s role has been defined by the Ponsonby rule, which is nearly 100 years old. Maybe it is symbolic that the initials of the CRaG Act also describe a high and rough mass of rigid rock that sticks out from the land around it. It is no longer fit for purpose.
It seems that the committees have come up with four very sensible recommendations, and I would like the Minister to indicate whether he is sympathetic to them. The first is that Parliament should be regularly updated during these agreement processes; the second that there should be a general presumption of transparency from the Government. That is not a legally codified or binding point, but just a presumption. There should also be a draft text of the agreement proposed and parliamentary trade reports from the Government, indicating full impact assessments on different sectors of the economy and labour markets. All this would be subject to confidentiality and security provisions. Will the Government indicate when they will give a formal, published response to these recommendations? The concept of a group of counsellors or advisors scrutinising such agreements goes back, in principle, to the Old Testament. This is a tried and tested principle: it is nothing new.
Brexit allows us to trade with the entire world. No longer is this great trading nation shackled by the European Union but, in a true democracy, those trade agreements must have effective scrutiny and that should come from Parliament. Parliament is more than an ornament.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the next speaker: Baroness Goudie.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
If we cannot reach the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) (V)
My Lords, the three reports we are considering today—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Baroness Bowles, I do apologise. Can we can just pause for a moment while we try to reconnect with the previous speaker?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) (V)
Thank you, my Lords, I am so sorry: I forgot to unmute. I welcome the reports of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the setting up of the new committee. I tend to agree with a number of my colleagues that it ought to be partly made up with Members of the House of Commons. Further, we must talk and be involved with the devolved Parliaments. This is very important, particularly in respect to Northern Ireland.
I am a member of the European Union Security and Justice Sub-Committee, where we have been looking at a number of these issues over the last 12 months. I wish to concentrate today on the final recommendation of the committee report Scrutiny of International Agreements, which draws attention to the fact that the CRaG Act applies only to international agreements that are binding under international law. This leaves a scrutiny gap because it excludes scrutiny of both political agreements and agreements with non-state entities. Important examples of political agreements excluded from scrutiny are memoranda of understanding, which are the same as treaties in terms of political commitment.
Paragraph 71 of the report highlights
“Air Services Agreements, which had been treaties between the EU and third countries”
but, as part of the Brexit process, have been converted into memoranda of understanding and not published. Air service agreements are important in facilitating international, commercial air-transport servicing and granting economic bilateral rights. These agreements have been around almost as long as flight itself. This scrutiny gap must be plugged. Proper scrutiny must not be circumvented. The committee’s recommendation is helpful so far as it goes, but it is too weak in asking only for consideration to be given. There are likely to be further examples of EU treaties under third countries being replaced by UK arrangements with those countries.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]
My Lords, I will start again. The three reports we are considering today provide a wealth of wisdom and background, as the excellent spoken contributions have done; most things have been said.
My own knowledge is derived more from practical experience in the EU than from UK legislative history and procedure. But I cannot help but think that we have not moved very far when we are left clinging to a 1924 precedent as a best hope, in this age of complex compound treaties and 24-hour international media. If a weak deal is negotiated by the Government, everyone will know. If Parliament has not been informed over time on tricky play-offs, that is when Parliament becomes difficult rather than an ally, and reasonable choices can end up misunderstood and publicly criticised.
The reports emphasise scrutiny and holding the Government to account, which of course is a primary purpose of Parliament. The Government’s approach is overly biased towards maximising their secretive freedom, believing that that always enables playing their best hand. That is not my experience. The Government can be in a stronger negotiating position if Parliament is on their side on the journey.
I first joined the European Parliament before the Lisbon treaty—before the Parliament’s veto came into force. I recall admissions that the Commission found itself weakened because countries would play the “Parliament/Congress won’t agree” card, to which it had no answer. No matter how tough you think you are in negotiations, just saying no—“Because I don’t want it, because it’s not my policy”—is hard. The reply comes back: “We’re blocked and you’re not. You’re the one that has to move.” The backing of a democratic mandate is strong in the pecking order.
When the Lisbon treaty came into force, the first parliament vetoes were on passenger name recognition and banking data transfers via SWIFT, which did result in better data protection standards. As well as holding Governments to account, parliaments provide equality of arms and can assist in discussions with other parliaments—which does not happen so much if there is no power.
I became involved in various public and private meetings on trade in financial services—a trade sector still not well developed. At a conference in the US Congress on one of my visits, I was spontaneously asked by a Senator on the banking committee to explain how the EU’s TTIP proposals on financial services would work in the US legal system. It was not a trick question, and Commission officials present confessed afterwards that they wished they could explain it as well as I had done. They noted that I had the advantage not only of being more specialist but of being in tune with the concerns of US parliamentarians, with whom I already had a working relationship.
We have a long way to go to harness the benefits of parliamentary involvement and grow our own modern method, and I commend the pragmatic proposals in the Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices report. The Government should not waste the benefits of Parliament as an ally and on the interparliamentary front—both externally and within the devolved UK.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for introducing the committee reports and note how strongly worded all three are about the need for change and the inadequacy—not to mention the ancient nature—of much of what currently governs the oversight that we have.
I think it is worth revisiting the words quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith: trade deals are as important as most laws. It is one of the ironies of Brexit that, whatever happens, we have lost not only the oversight of laws by a democratic Parliament—as neither House in this place is—but the very strong oversight of trade deals and treaties in general that comes under the Lisbon treaty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, just alluded to.
I will quote an independent report from the European Parliament think tank, which says that the European Parliament is
“powerful and active in trade policy, on a comparable level to the US Congress.”
We should aim for that level of scrutiny here in the UK. I note the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newham, that we can safely conclude that “take back control” did not mean that the people wanted to hand over control of our international treaties to Dominic Cummings.
However, I agree with Boris Johnson that we need to find a new place for the UK in the world, given where things are now. That is crucial to our security. This is an unstable, insecure world, threatened by multiple shocks, of which Covid-19 is just one. That place should be as chair of COP 26 and as a champion of climate action. Given our strong history in the UK as a place where much human rights law originated and much human rights campaigning has been done from, we should be a champion of democracy and human rights. However, we are not in a position to do that, just as we are not in a position to be a champion for climate action, unless we get our own house in order first. These three reports set out very clearly that we currently do not have that in place.
I will briefly refer to the debate in the Chamber today, which referred to the debate around the withdrawal agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, noted that repudiating treaties is what rogue states do. I probably spend more time on Twitter than most noble Lords, but I can tell any noble Lords who are listening that the hashtag “#PerfidiousAlbion” has been trending across most of the UK. If we are to be trusted in the world and if we are to take a stable, secure place in the world, democracy, oversight of treaties and full scrutiny have to be part of that process.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I thank the chairs and members of these committees for their excellent reports, which are as topical as tomorrow’s headlines. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her contribution. There was grave danger of this being a rather herbivorous Committee, with us all agreeing and, knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is himself a very skilful soother of worried brows, that we would have gone home tonight thinking that there is no problem and that it is all done and dusted. So I am grateful to the noble Baroness because I suspect that what she said was closer to what No.10 is thinking than any other contribution around this table tonight. I say to her that, yes, I am a remoaner, but the onus is now on her and her Brexiteer friends to deliver what they promised to the British people, which was sovereignty back to Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is giving the new committee a dry run, and I hope it becomes a Joint Committee. There is an absolute reason for reform of the CRaG Act. As somebody else pointed out, it was written while we were fully embedded in the EU, with the European Parliament taking on a lot of the heavy lifting on these treaty matters. The CRaG therefore needs to be reformed.
On the royal prerogative, I do not go as far back as Bagehot, but I do go as far back as Tony Benn. I remember him putting forward reform of the royal prerogative to the then Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan. Unfortunately, Jim was far too much of a small “c” conservative on these matters to tolerate it—but in fact he was right. The quote from Bagehot that was given is right as well. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested some of the ways forward in looking at the royal prerogative, but the status quo is certainly not enough.
I also worry because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—I am sorry that he is not here today to contribute—has given us ample warning of the overuse of Henry VIII powers in legislation. Along with Tony Benn, another voice from the 1970s and 1980s, Lord Hailsham, warned us of the danger of the democratic dictatorship, where, unless Parliament builds in the checks and balances to ensure both transparency and accountability, we will not be in a new era of parliamentary democracy in this country. We will find it very difficult.
This is the moment for a Parliament to exert itself. In a year’s time or two years’ time, we will be blithely told from the Dispatch Box, “Well, the precedent was established when we saw X Bill through or Y Bill through.” This is the moment of maximum leverage for Parliament. The Government have a lot of business to get through. If they want the co-operation of both Houses of Parliament in doing that, they should give cast-iron assurances that they will make the kind of amendments to our checks on the Executive called for in these three reports.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Let me first put on record my thanks to the three chairs for producing these reports, which have given us an excuse and a reason to debate where we go from here.
I welcome the government response to the Constitution Committee report on the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, because it brings out into the open what the Government are really up to. On page 5, it states:
“The Government welcomes the Committee’s recognition of the fundamental right of the Executive to negotiate for the UK on the international plane.”
In other words, returning power is returning power to Whitehall and not to Parliament. It continues:
“At the start of negotiations, the Government will publish its Outline Approach … Parliament will have a role in scrutinising these documents … The committee(s) could have access to sensitive information … and could receive private briefings … the committee(s) would have the power to produce a detailed report”—
but it does not say how long we might spend doing it.
I must say that I find this whole procedure depressing; no one has ever doubted where I have stood on this exercise. I am convinced that multilateralism is the only way forward in the modern world. Only in Moscow and Washington are there other Governments who believe that they can repudiate inconvenient parts of international agreements. I spent 25 years in Brussels in the European Parliament and have spent 15 years since then doing odd jobs for it and the Commission, and I can tell noble Lords that the only way forward is negotiation. You have to work with your colleagues; you do not win all the battles, but we are a big a country and we had a record of winning most of them. We won far more battles than we ever lost in the European Parliament.
We are losing sight not only of treaties as they retreat into the Foreign Office but of what is happening in Brussels. We are losing sight of the Lisbon process, and the inevitable end will be what happened when I was on a delegation to Vietnam last year. We interviewed the Trade Minister and he said, “Yes, of course we will be looking forward to a full, comprehensive trade agreement with you.” Then there was a pause of about five seconds before he said, “Of course, we couldn’t put anything in it that Brussels objected to because they are quite big, you know, in our trade arrangements.” This is the reality of where we are going. I hope that we get a treaty scrutiny committee. I am not sure whether it should be a Joint Committee of the two Houses, because the way in which the Commons treats the Lords is not always conducive to equality, but we certainly need something. We need to be informed and to be taken into consideration by the Government.
The European Union has many faults; it also has many strengths. One of its strengths is the system of rapporteurs, who are independent individuals appointed to look at specific trade and other agreements, and who have expertise in those countries. I had 20 years on the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. I knew everyone from the President down to the Ministers, and I could get in to see them. If we could look at a way of combining the trade envoys and the rapporteurs, it would be a good way forward. There is a lot to be gained in the future, but I would not in any way want to be where we are today. We are making the best of a bad job.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lords who have introduced these three impressive reports. As my noble friends Lord Purvis and Lord Wallace have noted, it is an irony that the Committee is having this debate on a day on which the Government have flagged that they may go back on an agreement they have already made, with the EU, on the Northern Ireland border. If indeed that is what they plan to do, this has huge consequences for peace on the island of Ireland, and for the unity of the United Kingdom. I expect emollient words, as usual, from the Minister, whatever he may privately feel. The Government do seem to be rowing back a little today, but whose bright idea was it to throw out agreements already made? When I bear in mind how we endeavour to ensure that China adheres to its signature on the 1997 Sino-British treaty on Hong Kong, the Minister will absolutely know what risky ground the Government may well be on. How can we ask others to adhere to treaties if we feel we can pick and choose which ones we will adhere to?
It is clearly vital to the rules-based global order, which we say we support, that countries guide their relationships through treaties, not conflict, and adhere to agreements made. Treaties have become more numerous and complicated than was the case with traditional peace treaties, or ones which bound one country to assist another if attacked. The Constitution Committee’s 2019 report, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties, noted this, and that Brexit made the examination of treaties, which were now likely to multiply, very pressing for the United Kingdom. It pointed out:
“During the … UK’s membership of the EU, the nature of treaties changed fundamentally—broadening from areas largely associated with international affairs—peace settlements and security alliances—to wide-ranging economic and trade agreements, encompassing diverse public policy issues.”
There had already long been concern about Parliament’s ability or otherwise to scrutinise treaties, dating back to Victorian times, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said. I recall the concern in the early 2000s about the agreement we made with the United States on extradition, which was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and was not reciprocal. We see those concerns playing out in reality now, not least in the case of Anne Sacoolas and Harry Dunn, yet we have had to extradite those with clear and major mental health problems.
The CRaG Act of 2010 sought to address some of the concerns about proper and thorough scrutiny of treaties, just as legislation should also be subject to proper and thorough scrutiny, not least lest unintended consequences may be shown up. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Donaghy, and other noble Lords have said, CRaG is not fit for purpose post Brexit. The Act requires that a treaty be laid before Parliament 21 sitting days before ratification, alongside explanations of any such treaty. That was certainly a step forward, but it has not proved effective in providing adequate scrutiny or, in effect, allowing Parliament the power to amend a treaty or prevent ratification. It occurs when the treaty has already been agreed. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, most treaties were scrutinised within the European Parliament.
It is clearly important to look at such treaties in advance, before they are concluded; otherwise, the matter is delivered as a fait accompli. It is a bit like the case with statutory instruments, where you do not necessarily want to reject the whole SI—an action regarded as a very rare nuclear option.
Scrutiny of treaties has not kept up with where we are. As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and others put it, scrutiny is essential. As the nature and number of treaties expanded while we were in the EU, many of them were negotiated at an EU level. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, may wish to go back to a pre-common market period, but life has moved on—and so have treaties.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others pointed out that transparency does not impede the Government but can assist them. My noble friend Lady Bowles showed how it helped in the case of EU negotiations with the United States. Now that we are negotiating our own treaties, such as trade deals, updating how we scrutinise them becomes urgent. My noble friend Lord Beith and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, emphasised how important such trade deals are.
The International Agreements Sub-Committee was set up to address, as it was put, “some of the deficiencies” of Parliament’s current treaty scrutiny processes. Surely the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Whitty, are right that the committee should stand alone and not just as a sub-committee of the European Union Committee. Given all that was said about “taking back control” to be delivered by Brexit—reference has been made to that today—including that this meant that the UK Parliament would expand its role, as my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord McNally said, and the expectation that various treaties would be brought forward as a result of Brexit, not least in terms of trade deals, clearly this issue must be addressed. As my noble friend Lord McNally pointed out, the Brexiteers promised increased sovereignty for Parliament.
The sub-committee has been set up and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated, is looking at whether adequate scrutiny of treaties can take place within the current CRaG arrangements, not least because there is little time or opportunity for legislative change. But as this latest report makes clear, the feeling is that if this scrutiny does not work, then legislative change to CRaG will be required. The way in which the Government pushed back with their response to the 2019 reports makes this conclusion look more, rather than less, likely.
That brings us to the three reports we are debating. The Constitution Committee’s report, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties, is over a year old, as is the European Union Committee’s Scrutiny of International Agreements. We have the working practices paper from the new sub-committee, which is more recent; as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said, the Constitution Committee recommended the establishment of this sub-committee. All the reports have called for greater transparency, a role for Parliament earlier in the process of negotiating international agreements and a proper role for the devolved institutions. Only the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, thinks that the reports go too far. Others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, argue the opposite.
Despite what the Government said in their 2019 response, the new sub-committee states that it expects the ratification of treaties to be extended beyond three weeks to enable proper scrutiny. Can the Minister tell us specifically whether the Government now agree? We do not want just warm words, to which my noble friend Lord McNally referred. Will they agree to this limited request?
The report notes that the FCO was unable in short order to answer its own questions. One might well ask why the Government think that three weeks is enough for Parliament to scrutinise a complicated trade deal. Of course, in terms of their own delays on a few questions, I note the Government have decided to use up some of their bandwidth, despite facing Brexit and coronavirus, by merging DfID and the FCO and changing their Permanent Secretaries. That cannot have helped.
The committee notes the complexity of scrutinising free trade agreements, covering many areas, as David Henig laid out, including the environment, employment relations, technical standards, food safety and much else. How might the Government facilitate this more complicated scrutiny? As I say, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, does not think that they need to and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, does not think that they will. I have a feeling that I agree with the noble Lord.
The European Parliament, of which we used to be a member, and to which UK citizens voted their representatives, has more power here than does the UK Parliament. I note that the Government do not want to replicate this, according to their response. Yet our leaving the EU, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, put it, results in a democratic deficit that Parliament must put right. Again, so much for taking back control —to the Executive, maybe. The US Congress has more powers, and we expect that those will be brought to bear in any agreement with the US on trade.
The Government pushed back hard on the 2019 reports, pocketing where the reports allowed the Government to take unilateral action but giving little in terms of transparency or timing on any scrutiny. For example, the Government welcome the fact that the committee saw no need to amend CRaG, exploiting its politeness. It is therefore useful to have this year’s report on how things are working, or not really working. There are serious warnings in here. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others have pointed out, treaties may have as great an effect on the UK and its people as the legislation we consider. I therefore look forward to specific proposals and agreement from the Minister, and for him no longer to endorse the Government’s response that we have here.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, treaties signed by the Government of the day have enormous ramifications for our country and our partners in their agreements. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, they now increasingly have wide policy implications that they have not had in the past, which is why it is so important that Parliament, civil society and the wider public play a role in their development and scrutiny.
I, too, thank the three chairs for their excellent introductions to their respective reports, each of which shines a light on the inadequacies of the current arrangements. As we have heard, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is not necessarily fit for purpose. As my noble friend Lady Taylor, chair of the Constitution Committee, said, there has been little time and virtually no opportunity provided for Parliament to have a say prior to the agreement.
Of course, as we have heard in the debate, it is long established that the agreement of treaties is a matter for the Executive, but as we leave the European Union and take on significant new powers in treaty-making, it is right that we consider what scrutiny should be applied to this prerogative, as many noble Lords have said. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, these three reports can act a cornerstone for those considerations. Each of them makes it clear that the provisions of CRaG do not suffice.
A tick-box exercise whereby the Government can claim that they have engaged with Parliament by laying the treaty under the negative resolution procedure is not a process of scrutiny. Again, as my noble friend Lady Taylor highlighted, the Constitution Committee did not express the view that Parliament should be required to endorse the Government’s mandate prior to commencing treaty negotiations, but it came down firmly in favour of a general principle of transparency from the Government throughout the treaty process. That is what this debate is clearly about, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that specific call.
The Government have also been asked by all the committees about the need to engage more effectively with the devolved institutions throughout the process. We have of course heard about the Constitution Committee’s recommendation and we now have a scrutiny committee, in the form of the EU International Agreements Sub-committee. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Golding—no, Lord Goldsmith; it is because I am seeing a note that he is a Whip, but he has hidden it now—is that it is simply not enough to have the committee. We need to ensure that it has sufficient time and is able to consider those necessary reports from the Government. The Government’s response in July 2019 to the Constitution Committee said that the CRaG Act remained
“a viable legal framework for scrutiny.”
However, they committed to engage
“with whatever parliamentary scrutiny structures the Houses implement”,
so it is incumbent on the Minister today to say exactly what that means in respect to the committee that we have established. Exactly what will they do to ensure that there is proper engagement with the committee?
As we have heard, on the general issue of transparency, the Government said in that response that they did not agree that they
“should operate on a presumption of transparency for all treaty negotiations.”
They said that, when deciding what information to make public, they had to balance
“openness against … factors including the risk of undermining the UK’s negotiating position”.
My noble friend Lady Taylor addressed that specific point. Again, it is incumbent on the Minister to set out to us what he sees that balance as being. Exactly how will the Government measure it?
As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said in his contribution, our recent trade agreements have included the one announced with Japan, which is of great interest to Members of both this House and the Commons. However, at present, no debate on its provisions is scheduled. We have not had the opportunity to comment properly on it and, unfortunately, present arrangements mean that such trade treaties will be scrutinised only when the Government see fit. I am sure there are many who believe that the Government will never see fit.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the need for standards in trade agreements. When considering the predecessor Trade Bill in 2019, noble Lords in this House made some 30 amendments covering employment, food and environmental standards, customs arrangements, Northern Ireland—we know that we will talk about Northern Ireland again tomorrow—and the future of EU collaboration. As the then Minister who was taking the Trade Bill through at that time put it,
“no legislation passes the scrutiny of this House without being improved.”—[Official Report, 6/3/19; col. 615.]
She said that “this is unquestionably true” in relation to these issues.
This side of the House strongly believes that the Government need to establish appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, whether as significant changes to the existing EU ones or new, free-standing FTAs. The International Trade Select Committee and the Lords’ new International Agreements Sub-committee should have early access to negotiating mandates, receive ongoing negotiation reports and have the powers to make recommendations for the final approval of trade treaties and agreements. We must ensure that consumers, trade unions and wider civil society, and the nations and regions of this country, are fully engaged in trade policy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, these international arrangements are not limited to trade agreements. She mentioned extradition treaties as an example. This was recently the subject of debates on the extradition Bill. The Minister will recall that I previously tabled a Motion which led to the debate on the extradition treaty with Kuwait. I was pleased that the Government found time for that debate and allayed my concerns over the extradition of those who may face the death penalty. However, there is no single mechanism—no guarantee that Parliament will have that opportunity to scrutinise. As my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said, we need proper structures for appropriate, democratic oversight. I repeat that it is incumbent on the Minister to set that out in very clear terms this evening, in response to these three excellent committee reports.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I am going to say something which I have probably never said before in your Lordships’ House: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. He described these parliamentary reports as “excellent”. I fear that that is where our agreement may come to a very Lord-like difference of opinion. I am, nevertheless, truly grateful to noble Lords for their insightful contributions to this excellent debate. I also echo the sentiments of other noble Lords in acknowledging the sterling work done by my noble friend Lord Boswell during his tenure.
I thank all noble Lords present, all committees and staff for their excellent work in the production of these reports. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, reminded the Committee that, whatever the new norm will be, life has changed. It is, therefore, a particularly strong testament to everyone involved that in the same 12 months that these reports were produced, Parliament has established a dedicated treaty committee, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, as an exemplary chair. I welcome my early engagement with that committee.
I know the noble Lord, Lord McNally, well. One of my first jobs in government was to serve as his Whip. Those who have seen the noble Lord perform at the Dispatch Box will appreciate my great skill in ensuring that the words “Keep Calm and Carry On” were regular reflections of the exchanges that we had. I hope that, if I am not able to directly answer all the comments in the course of my remarks, I shall be able to provide the level of warm reassurance that the noble Lord mentioned.
The production of these reports is testament to the magnitude of the issue being considered today: how the United Kingdom negotiates and concludes our international treaties. As always, I listened very carefully from the outset. The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Balfe talked about how the committee itself should be governed and operate. I noticed that there was a difference between my noble friend’s perspective and what the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Foulkes, suggested on whether it should be a Joint Committee. As I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge, this is very much for Parliament itself. I engage directly with the Joint Committee on Human Rights in my capacity as Human Rights Minister and the Government look forward to working with any scrutiny mechanisms established by Parliament within the CRaG framework. I also welcome the International Agreements Sub-Committee, established in April this year.
It would be remiss of me not to pick up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the recent remarks that have been made and where we currently are in negotiations with our EU partners. In reflecting on the excellent contribution of my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness said that my noble friend was looking at the past. I fear that my noble friend was attempting to remind noble Lords of the present: where we are today. We have left the European Union and therefore it is important, as the UK moves forward, to recognise that we will have full control of our treaty policy.
It is also right that Parliament takes a heightened interest in how the Government conduct their treaty negotiations. That has been reflected in the excellent debate today. We are at a crucial juncture in our constitutional order, and at this early stage I recognise that strong governance, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, reminded us, is vital. Our actions this year will set a precedent for the UK’s international agreements long into the future. However, the constitutional balance, which my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned in her remarks, also requires us to be cautious about not tying the Executive’s hands.
The three reports considered today recognise that treaty-making is, of course, a function of the Government, subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. That scrutiny is provided for, as all noble Lords acknowledge, in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which enshrines the principles of parliamentary accountability in our international treaty relations. In the Government’s response to the previous reports—I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that I too hoped that we would have published my response to the report, but I hope we will issue it very shortly—we fully acknowledged the case for improving processes around the way the Act is implemented to ensure effective parliamentary scrutiny.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Northover, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, among others mentioned the CRaG Act. They also recognised the reforms that have taken place. As we know, the Act is barely 10 years old. The fundamental nature of treaties has not changed significantly in that time and it is the Government’s view that CRaG respects the balance between the need for parliamentary accountability and the fundamental right of the Executive to negotiate for the UK internationally, exercising their powers under the royal prerogative. The rule is a result of centuries of constitutional practice, as we have heard, and it serves an important function. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act allows the United Kingdom to speak clearly, with a single voice as a single actor under international law.
As noble Lords will also understand, negotiating a treaty is an art. However, I also acknowledge the contribution from my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who importantly reminded us of the strength and skills in our own parliamentary democracy, particularly—I add with perhaps a degree of bias—the expertise that we find in your Lordships’ House. At some stage, though, in the negotiations themselves, both sides will have to offer compromises. I am sure, however, that many noble Lords will recognise that these compromises are best kept in reserve. I was in business for more than 20 years prior to joining the Government, and I learned that all negotiations require the need for big sleeves. Announcing your position in advance often risks giving your negotiating partner the upper hand. Sometimes, of course, confidentiality—which many noble Lords mentioned—will be key. We are, of course, reminded of the Good Friday agreement.
However, if we are too prescriptive in the requirements that we make around CRaG, we risk tying our negotiators’ hands. Negotiators must be equipped to represent the national interest to the best effect. Equally, however, I respect the necessity, as has been said today, that they remain mindful of Parliament’s interests. As any Minister negotiating a treaty will be aware, the importance of Parliament’s role cannot in any way be ignored. Knowing that Parliament can resolve itself against ratification or may need to pass implementing legislation is an important consideration during the course of negotiations and in engaging with Parliament under CRaG.
The issues of CRaG, its reform and how Parliament moves forward with scrutiny were also matters of much debate in this regard. In the time I have I will pick up on some of the specific questions that were asked about the Government’s current position. As I already said, further details will emerge from the formal response that the Government will issue to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
What has changed since CRaG was adopted, though, is the level of public interest now that the UK has control of its treaty policy, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others that the Government welcome this increased interest. We accept that this justifies increased engagement and information within the CRaG framework whenever possible. As I said, this will vary at times due to individual negotiations but could include engagement through the negotiation process before an agreement is formally laid before Parliament under the Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, also talked of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government acknowledge that, and I add that we also believe that parliamentary scrutiny does not necessarily end with ratification. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to publishing all treaty amendments, not just those that require ratification and thereby trigger CRaG. Likewise, for other implementations, derogations or withdrawals, we look forward to working with the International Agreements Sub-Committee to provide transparency effectively and appropriately.
On living up to these commitments, our response has to date focused on the important issue of trade deals—an area where there has been significant recent interest, for understandable reasons. I am pleased to note the positive response to the bespoke approach of colleagues in government, particularly those in the Department for International Trade, in this respect. This point was acknowledged by several noble Lords. Its regime of engagement and transparency allows for effective scrutiny of trade agreements. I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that we have seen through the recent compressive publications before negotiations—whether with the US, Japan, which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned specifically, Australia or New Zealand—that the DIT, as well as other departments, will continue to keep Parliament informed through regular updates on negotiation progress.
In addition, the Government will also seek to allow time before finalising a new free trade agreement and laying it before Parliament under CRaG. That will allow the relevant scrutiny committee to produce an independent report. This open and detailed process will help Parliament and the public understand the agreement and its implications. This reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
I will pick up on some of the specific questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and other noble Lords mentioned the 21-day timescale. In this regard, the Government commit to continue the regular constructive meetings between officials and those in the committees. In addition, it might be appropriate in certain cases for the Government to share a signed or initial treaty text with the relevant Select Committee or the IAC in advance of laying formally under CRaG to help the committee manage its scrutiny workload. This is especially appropriate for the FTAs, as I mentioned, and the Government will seek, as I said, to allow time between finalising a new FTA and laying it before Parliament under the CRaG procedure. The noble and learned Lord asked specifically about the timescales, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Government will consider the use of Section 21 of CRaG, whereby Ministers can extend 21 sitting days where appropriate.
Another issue that came up from several noble Lords was MoUs. This was a matter of discussion between me and the committee during our exchanges. As noble Lords reminded us, MoUs are used where it is appropriate to include a statement of political intent or political undertaking. In general terms, MoUs are drafted in non-legally binding language to reflect political commitments. They are not binding as a matter of international law and are not published or laid before Parliament as a matter of government practice. Particular elements of this, including the Ponsonby rule, were covered by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. In situations where MoUs raise questions of public importance, it might be appropriate for the Government to draw such matters to Parliament’s attention; for example, by way of a Written Ministerial Statement. Other measures are available to Ministers, as my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded your Lordships. However, it is not the Government’s intention routinely to submit MoUs for scrutiny.
The issue of devolved Administrations approving treaties that affect devolved issues was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Collins, among others. The United Kingdom Government recognise that the devolved Administrations have a strong interest in international policy-making in relation to devolved and reserved matters that impact on the distinct interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to working constructively with the devolved Administrations to facilitate the effective implementation of our international obligations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned ways of scrutiny in other countries. My noble friend Lord Lansley also reminded us of the importance of scrutiny. As I have said, the Government welcome the establishment of the IAC and will engage quite directly. In preparation for this debate, I looked at some of the measures deployed by other countries. JSCOT, the Australian scrutiny committee, has a sifting mechanism—the noble and learned Lord mentioned this—and we see its value. It is in the Government’s interest to ensure that the most qualified committees scrutinise relevant treaties. Whereas under CRaG we allow 21 days, it is my understanding that the Australian committee currently has 15 days to scrutinise a particular treaty.
Human rights were also rightly raised—the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked of their importance. I assure noble Lords that none of the 20 continuity trade agreements already signed has reduced standards in any area. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister outlined in his Greenwich speech, we remain committed to upholding high environmental, human rights and labour standards. The recent merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Department for International Development aligns the importance of our values agenda with our development policy. For example, when transitioning the EU deal with the Republic of Korea, we agreed a joint statement on human rights within a separate political declaration signed by our ambassador and the vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs in Seoul. That was published on 21 August 2019. More widely, the Government have already committed to set out in Explanatory Memoranda whether there are any significant human rights implications so that departments consider the human rights implications of all treaties.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Northover, the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Whitty, and my noble friend Lord Lansley mentioned the importance of confidential briefings. The IAC report specifically acknowledged the limits of sharing confidential information regarding FTAs. The Government have a responsibility to protect UK interests in our international negotiations and to ensure that we do not release information that would undermine our negotiating position or our partners’ legitimate expectations of confidentiality. I know that noble Lords agree on this important principle. However, in line with our commitment to transparency and to aid parliamentary scrutiny, we have already seen our DIT colleagues share information where appropriate with the IAC on a confidential basis to keep it apprised of our FTA negotiations. Likewise, the Government will assess whether to give confidential briefings on a case by case basis.
I am coming to the end of my time. In acknowledging the excellence of the debate we have had, and the debate that I am sure will continue, I give a continued commitment in my capacity now as Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to engage. I underline that the Government value parliamentary scrutiny and look forward to engaging closely with the committee in this respect. I assure all noble Lords that no one doubts that Parliament’s role is to hold Ministers to account. Equally, I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that the Government have a responsibility to secure the best outcome when it comes to the national interest in our international negotiations.
One yardstick by which the country will be measured going forward is our record as a sovereign and independent nation on negotiating and concluding new treaties that reflect our new status. Therefore, there is a balance to strike, as I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. But let me assure noble Lords that we believe that the framework of the CRaG continues to strike that balance. With the additional engagement that I have outlined today, which of course will be detailed in response to the noble and learned Lord’s report, I believe that we will be able to provide more reassurance to all noble Lords about the Government’s commitment to transparency and to work with the committee in a constructive and progressive way.
With the additional engagement and information-sharing measures that I have outlined this afternoon, I hope that I have provided a degree of those warm words for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, among others, with the added reassurance that the Government remain absolutely committed to working with Parliament for the effective scrutiny of our international agreements and obligations.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start by thanking the Minister for what were not just warm words—there was some substance in them as well. We will study them very carefully. I know that he would have wanted to respond in more detail in writing to the report before today, if he had been able to do so, and I recognise that.
With the Minister, this has been an enormously valuable debate, and I think so for two particular reasons. First, it is because of things that noble Lords have said, to which we will go back many times, I imagine, to see just what they are. It is not just about the new touchstone for parliamentary ignorance from the noble Lord, Lord Beith of whether you can distinguish you Ponsonby rule from your CRaG Act. It is also about the very important political statements about the importance of the job of scrutiny of international treaties. The second reason is that, with one notable exception, the Committee has almost unanimously been of the view that scrutiny by Parliament of international agreements is something that has to take place and has to take place in an effective way. The ideas and thoughts that have come from noble Lords are important. I suppose that it has not been before its time. Even in terms of the British Parliament, taking 150 years to come to the recognition that actually treaties are just as important as domestic laws is not that bad.
There are two points that I hope the Minister will take from the debate. One was the comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the importance of having evidence-based scrutiny. That is one of the reasons why the time to consider treaties is important. We want to hear from stakeholders and the public what they think, and 21 sitting days is not enough to do that. It is important to have that evidence, and we believe that it will help the Government, because they will need to know what the issues are so that they can, I hope, take them into account when they negotiate the treaties.
The second point, which was made by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, was about the Government’s attitude. She suggested that that was the most important thing, and we look for not just warm words but an attitude of government that is determined to see scrutiny operate effectively. Of course, ultimately, the Government make the decisions, but we believe that they will be guided and helped by scrutiny from this place.
I would like to feel that this debate, which has gone extremely well, has taken account of what we said, particularly at paragraph 32 of our report, which is that it may be—and we hope it is—that in a pragmatic way we will be able to conduct the necessary scrutiny without amendment to the law. If not, we will look at that and give fair warning of that. This debate has perhaps fired the starting pistol on that warning, and we will come back to it.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties (Constitution Committee Report)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties (20th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 345).
Scrutiny of International Agreements: Lessons Learned (EUC Report)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Kinnoull
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Scrutiny of international agreements: lessons learned (42nd Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 387).
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want briefly to say one or two things. First, I thank all the speakers, going in reverse order. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that it has been an interesting debate. Even the things that I did not agree with were of immense interest and the standard of debate was very high. I am grateful for that.
I am also grateful to the Minister, who was, as ever, charming. I thought that I was going to be disappointed but, in the end, he came back and said a number a things that, on reading, showed a lot of hope for the situation. I always thought that the general principle of Brexit was replication of EU law in British law; this appeared to be in danger of being the exception, in that the man in the street had the protection of the scrutiny of the European Parliament and others but was then not going to have any. I was heartened by what the Minister said, especially about the engagement with the International Relations Committee.
That brings me to today’s guiding theme: the importance of an international agreements committee for the House. We have had a sense of the excellence that has already been injected into the committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Like others, I very much look forward to it being established on a stand-alone basis for the House—and in short order. I know that that potentially means a long time in House of Lords-speak, but I mean in short order because the committee is already proving very valuable. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
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.
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Public Procurement Contracts
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Choudrey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises are awarded public procurement contracts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are determined to ensure that SMEs win public contracts when they offer good value for money. We are committed to tackling the barriers that SMEs face. Each department publishes an SME action plan setting out its commercial strategy to increase spending with smaller businesses. Central government spend figures published for 2018-19 show that SMEs earned £14.2 billion through government contracts. That is nearly £2 billion more than the previous year and the highest since government records began in 2013.
Lord Choudrey (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for that Answer. SMEs account for 98% of the UK’s business population. The Government are prudently seeking to enhance their engagement with the SME sector. In that regard, the Government’s own target for spending with SMEs is 33% by the end of 2022. As we go through one of the worst recessions in our country’s history, there will be a greater desire to achieve economies of scale through higher aggregation of demand in the form of centralised procurement, potentially at the cost of SME participation. However, we know that the SMEs are incredibly innovative and efficient. When given the opportunity, they would be able to drive national economic growth and prosperity. The Government must therefore harness their true potential and ensure that the SMEs are able to play a vital role in the procurement framework and are not left out of the national strategies. Government departments will need to listen to SMEs’ concerns and find solutions without compromising delivery and value for the taxpayer.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Each government department publishes its own SME action plan, which describes how it is engaging better with the SME sector to address the department’s own needs and increase spend with SMEs. Particular departments hold early-market engagement events to explain and discuss their requirements with a wide range of suppliers.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, could my noble friend please tell me what departments are doing to make sure that SMEs can get on the preferred list of companies—where departments use this—and that the buyers within those departments are rewarded for making the extra effort to deal with small suppliers and are not risking their own careers by doing so?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We encourage all SMEs that are interested in bidding for public sector opportunities to use Contracts Finder, which lists all tenders over £10,000. SMEs can create an account to get email updates for opportunities that align with their business interests. Public sector contracts are, of course, awarded after a fair and open competition process and commercial buyers are encouraged to ensure that all tenders are suitable for SMEs
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, one area where there is a ready-made opportunity for boosting our industrial output and supporting struggling —and, indeed, collapsing—SMEs is defence. The Prime Minister recently stated that our nation requires
“a shipbuilding industry and Royal Navy that reflect the importance of the seas to our security and prosperity.”
Hurrah for that, but our shipyards—and particularly the SMEs that support them—are in dire straits. They need a commitment to a rolling programme of warship building if they are to survive, and the Navy is desperate for more ships. Can I ask the Minister whether this requirement is being given prominence in the current integrated defence review?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is, of course, well aware that I am not a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, so I shall have to write to him on that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
Would the Minister agree with me that, as well as being good business, it is morally incumbent on the Government to procure from SMEs owned and run by people who look like those that they serve? If he does agree, could he explain why—despite years of lobbying from people like myself and groups representing BAME and women-owned businesses—the Government still do not know how many such businesses they are procuring from? What you do not measure, you cannot manage.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can tell the noble Baroness that, since its launch in 2012, something like 20% of our start-up loans have gone to entrepreneurs from black, Asian and minority-ethnic backgrounds and, throughout this crisis, we have hosted a series of round tables on our wider support scheme for BAME businesses.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, the Government are keen in their EU negotiations to allow UK companies to benefit from state aid where appropriate. Will the Minister therefore confirm that it is equally important for the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that the SMEs within their own territory are helped to secure public procurement contracts for which those devolved Governments are responsible?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, I cannot speak for the devolved Governments, but I am sure they are doing all in their power to ensure that as many small businesses as possible receive contracts.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as you know, the Federation of Small Businesses is running a campaign called “Fair Pay Fair Play” about what it calls the scourge of late payment. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to when key components of this campaign, such as putting the Prompt Payment Code on a statutory basis and giving powers to the Small Business Commissioner, will ever be introduced?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are completely focused on fulfilling the Government’s manifesto commitment to clamp down on late payments and strengthen the powers of the Small Business Commissioner to support small businesses that are exploited by their larger partners. At the Spring Statement, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Government announced that they will require large companies’ audit committees to review payment practices and report them in their annual accounts.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend have details of the financial value of UK companies that are engaged in delivering EU public procurement contracts? In the run-up to the post-Brexit period, are the Government engaged with these firms regarding support because, for many businesses, this may be their main or whole business?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a good question. Unfortunately, we do not gather data on how many UK SMEs are involved in EU procurements. However, there will, of course, be a high level of access to markets in the EU once the UK has joined the WTO general procurement agreement as an independent member. This is expected to be at the beginning of 2021. The UK’s market access offer for services is the same as the current coverage under the EU’s GPA schedule. Reciprocal coverage will continue once the UK is a GPA party.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Baroness Scott? No? We will go on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister what opportunities there will be for small and medium-sized businesses in the food sector to bid for contracts to deliver food to schools, hospitals, prisons and other public sector services? This is a wonderful opportunity to have locally produced food locally delivered for local consumption.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the point that my noble friend is making but, of course, each individual contracting authority will have its own strategy for food procurement. The Crown Commercial Service has established a number of frameworks for the provision of food, and this agreement will deliver a UK-wide SME-inclusive food-procurement service for public sector food buyers.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
In the Covid era, small businesses are most at risk and need help from the Government. Can the Minister answer whether he agrees?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, all businesses will need help during the Covid crisis, and we have one of the largest programmes of help for companies and businesses in the western world.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister explain to the House the—[Inaudible.]—The procurement process for public contracts is often enormously cumbersome, time-consuming and costly—[Inaudible.]
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is completely inaudible, but I suspect the Minister might have an idea of what she is trying to say.
Lord Callanan (Con)
If we heard the noble Baroness correctly as she was interrupted, I think she was asking about the bureaucracy associated with public sector procurement contracts. We have removed complex pre-qualification questionnaires from low-value contracts and increased the transparency of opportunities via the Contracts Finder website, which covers current and future public sector contracts and award notices above £10,000 in central government and £25,000 in the wider public sector. Contracts Finder is available on a single, free-to-use digital platform and we encourage all SMEs to access it.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, fortunately, and we now move to the second Oral Question.
Highway Layouts
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what weight is given to the effect of new or modified highway layouts on adjacent sites of ecological, cultural or scientific significance.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as a vice-president of the RHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, we always try to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts when we design and develop major highway schemes. The impacts are considered carefully when making value-for-money assessments and when projects are put forward for planning consent. The Planning Inspectorate weighs all relevant material considerations and may subsequently recommend to the Secretary of State that consent is not granted.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. The Government have pledged to plant millions of trees to improve biodiversity, reduce flood risks and capture carbon. However, Highways England’s proposal for junction 10 of the M25 will do the exact opposite. Some 44 irreplaceable trees will be lost. There will be longer, more polluted and more convoluted traffic journeys and building disruption lasting many years, all critically harming RHS Wisley’s heritage site. Also, the RHS charity could see an income reduction of millions of pounds. Will the Government ensure that all evidence is considered, especially the alternative, common-sense proposal to this scheme from the RHS and Wisley’s cultural significance, before making a final decision?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding all noble Lords of government policy. She is absolutely right that this Government are committed to the environment and want to see improvements within it. The scheme she mentioned is a live planning application. It is with the Planning Inspectorate at the moment so I cannot comment on the detail, but I reassure her that the DCO process is designed to make sure that any proposal is subject to the highest level of scrutiny to ensure that it complies with planning law. It may interest the noble Baroness to know that this scheme had four rounds of public consultation.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
Following on from the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, Wisley is part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, which is a key site for safeguarding very important fauna and flora in England and which we really cannot afford to lose. What action will HM Government take to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport has all the evidence available to conclude with certainty, as the law requires, that the proposed new junction 10 of the M25 will not harm the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is up to the Planning Inspectorate to make sure that it feels comfortable that it has all the information it requires. If not, it will ensure that it goes out and gets it. I reassure the noble Baroness that under RIS2, the new road investment scheme strategy which came out in April 2020, Highways England has various KPIs which relate to biodiversity. HE’s KPI is that there will be no net loss of biodiversity, using Natural England’s assessment approach.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, my question cites the example of the UNESCO world heritage site of Stonehenge and the A303, where the current situation is intolerable for both the local community and air quality. Notwithstanding the importance of this route for travel to the West Country for residents and the vital tourism trade, we see constant traffic jams. Does my noble friend agree that we must come to a position balancing preservation against progress?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, this scheme is also with the Planning Inspectorate and I therefore cannot comment on it in great detail. However, she will know that the decision was delayed owing to an archaeological find and therefore further consultation will take place with all the relevant stakeholders within the particular field. This will enable all relevant matters to be considered and, as she rightly said, a balanced position to be reached. We expect a position to be reached by 13 November.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As part of the Planning for the Future consultation, the Government are considering the relationship between infrastructure, including roads, and the planning system. With the White Paper asserting that decisions to grant planning consent should no longer be taken on a case-by-case basis but be
“determined by clear rules for what can and cannot be done”,
can the Minister give an assurance that the outcome under these future rules for what can and cannot be done will not result in diminished consideration of the environmental impact of proposed roadbuilding, bearing in mind that the environmental impact of roadbuilding and development, including on adjacent sites of ecological, cultural or scientific significance, varies considerably from case to case?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
On a case-by-case basis, each road scheme must comply with the national policy statement on national roads, which states that a DCO applicant must show, for example, how the project has taken advantage of opportunities to “conserve and enhance” biodiversity and geological conservation interests. There are many other issues in that national policy statement which will apply to roads now and in future.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, we are at a crucial point as we try to recover from the pandemic. Do we try to go back to business as usual or grasp the opportunity to build back greener? Does the Minister agree that the Government’s priority after the pandemic should be investment in a zero-emission public transport fleet, including the creation of more cycle lanes and safe walkways, and not the creation of more highways? Will the Government look at the amount of money and the number of schemes they are planning to invest in?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have clearly set out within RIS2 the schemes that will be invested in and the enhancements that will be made. As the noble Baroness will know, for enhancements it is often not a case of building a new road—very few absolutely new roads are ever built—but of improving the existing roads and, as importantly, maintaining our existing infrastructure. I reassure her that, for example, within the funding envelope of RIS2 there is a designated environmental and well-being fund which can be spent not on specific schemes but where it is best needed. That fund amounts to £345 million.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I am confident that my noble friend recognises the importance of biodiversity in highway verges. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to seriously consider creating meaningful nature corridors alongside any new-build highways.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that we certainly consider nature corridors along new highways—not for all of them, because obviously not all are suitable for that sort of thing. Highways England has a huge commitment to biodiversity. For example, my noble friend will be pleased to know that we will improve the habitat alongside the M6 corridor from Preston to the border with Scotland.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, in making the business case for the proposed roadworks close to Wisley Gardens, it is likely that the time-savings for road users will be taken into account? What proportion of the expected time-savings is of two minutes duration or less? Also, has account been taken in such calculations of the likely fall in commuter traffic and flows to and from Gatwick and Heathrow?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I have stated previously, I cannot go into detail about the scheme the noble Lord mentioned, but I can say that the junction around the M25 is one of the most highly congested junctions on our motorway network, and it sees 270,000 vehicles a day. Therefore, even two minutes per vehicle would be a significant time saving, both from an economic and social perspective, and it would also have environmental benefits.
The scheme is also designed to improve safety. That particular junction has the highest casualty rate on the M25. It is too early to understand what the long-term impacts of Covid are, but traffic levels have rebounded very strongly. However, each scheme already has a low-growth scenario, which is taken into account in granting planning.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, to improve air quality around areas of sensitive ecology, we must encourage green transport. According to a Department for Transport survey, only 1% of households own an electric car, and 2% own a hybrid. The main barriers to increasing these numbers are access to charging points and the cost of purchase. Therefore, why are the Government spending £2 on unrestricted fossil fuel subsidies for every £1 promoting clean energy, such as the EV charging infrastructure?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this Government have a huge respect for electric vehicles. Certainly, the numbers the noble Baroness quotes are low and are historic, because the number of electric vehicles is increasing, and we expect it to increase in the future. However, while we are transitioning to electric vehicles, Highways England is doing a huge amount of work on air quality. For example, in late September, Highways England will introduce 60 miles per hour speed limits on certain sections of the strategic road network, in order to bring down speeds and improve air quality.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
Post Office: Horizon Accounting System
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the review of the Post Office’s Horizon accounting system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are keen to see this review launched as soon as possible. We are making progress with the appointment of a chair. Once this process is complete, the review will then be formally launched. My colleague, the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, has also spoken to Paul Patterson—managing director and head of sales and country leadership for Fujitsu UK—who has confirmed that Fujitsu will collaborate fully with the review.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The delay to this review suggests that the Government are having some difficulty finding someone unwise enough to take on the chairmanship. Is my noble friend aware that the historical shortfall scheme, set up to give compensation to sub-postmasters who have suffered through the Horizon fiasco, is not available to those sub-postmasters who have been employed through others—like McColl’s or the Co-op—even though they have suffered in exactly the same way as the rest? Is this not another injustice inflicted on sub-postmasters who have surely suffered enough already?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I pay tribute once again to the tenaciousness of my noble friend in raising this sad tale. The historical shortfall scheme was open to people or companies who had, or have, a direct contract with the Post Office, including companies such as McColl’s and the Co-op. Assistants of postmasters or employees of other companies who had no contract with the Post Office would not be eligible, as they had no contractual liability directly to the Post Office.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there are three strands to this scandal: the continuing failure of the IT scheme, the devious behaviour of the Post Office and the heroic persistence of 550 postmasters and postmistresses. In their case, it has been a story of lost livelihoods, bankruptcies, prison, mental health problems, and now death. Seventeen claimants have died, some without their convictions being quashed; the doctors of one, Julian Mason, spoke of the stress as a contributing factor. There has also been a suicide. Will the Government acknowledge the urgency of this review to bring peace of mind to those who have suffered and, indeed, to hear their evidence before it is too late?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I certainly acknowledge the urgency of the situation. We are working as fast as possible to get the review under way and to announce the chair—we will do so as quickly as possible.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my heart goes out to all the sub-postmistresses and sub-postmasters who have been dragged through this Horizon hell. They have been treated despicably. Will the Government act ahead of this review and pay the legal fees of those brave sub-postmasters and postmistresses who took legal action? They were awarded £57 million; after legal fees that is now down to £11 million. Surely the Government can take that action without having to wait for the review to commence?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, there was an agreed settlement for the sub-postmasters who took legal action. It would not be right for the Government to interfere in that settlement.
Lord Polak (Con)
As is clear for the individuals and families caught up in the Horizon disaster, life continues to be unbearable. I ask my noble friend the Minister to help me answer my friend Rita Threlfall, the former sub-postmistress from Liverpool, whose story I highlighted in this House on 18 June. She said this weekend: “We seek reasonable justice, and it is still our aim to have a judicial inquiry, as we all feel it is the only way to uncover the truth behind the reason we have suffered financial loss through no fault of our own. But more importantly, it will help us in some way to mend our broken lives.”
Lord Callanan (Con)
The lady that my noble friend mentions is one of many tragic cases arising from this. It is indeed an appalling scandal. Of course, there has already been a judicial finding of faults in this, and the comments of Mr Justice Fraser are well worth reviewing. We want to go further than that: we want a proper review, and to be fully assured that through the review there is a public summary of the failings that occurred at the Post Office through this scandal—drawing on the judgments from the Horizon case and by listening to those most affected—without repeating the findings of Mr Justice Fraser.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
This has been the most appalling scandal. Those impacted are still waiting for justice, not just for themselves but in holding to account those who appear to have sought, at every stage, to cover up what actually went wrong. Can the Minister give some assurance that the appointment of a chairman, and this going ahead, is imminent, and that those responsible at the Post Office and elsewhere will be held to account?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that the appointment will be made as quickly as possible. We are under no illusion about the urgency of the case and the need to get on with it as quickly as possible. I am hoping that an announcement can be made very shortly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend the Minister made similar comments three months ago when my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, to whom we all pay tribute, raised this subject. It is a disgrace. The Government, as my noble friend will agree, have both an actual and a moral responsibility here. Can he remember the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied”?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend on this: we need to get on with it. There have been a number of delays, for various reasons, but I am hoping that an appointment can be made imminently, because we all want to see this under way as quickly as possible.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that the review will not have the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005? Therefore, how will the reviewer compel witnesses, including Ministers, to give evidence, or see the papers necessary to assess, for example, whether lessons have been learned and that whistleblowers in the Post Office will not be treated in such a disgraceful way again in the future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The review is non-statutory, but the Post Office, Fujitsu and the Government have all committed to co-operate as fully as possible with the review. The chair will, of course, be fully independent of both the Post Office and Government, and will draw conclusions and recommendations as they see fit.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all know that sub-postmasters are the pillars of local communities, and yet they have suffered by being compensated for an insultingly small proportion of the losses they incurred through this terrible scandal and the cruel unfairness that followed. The Minister says that he does not want to interfere, but the Government are 100% owner of the Post Office—the Permanent Secretary of the department is its accounting officer and there is government representation on the board. The Government are ultimately responsible for this scandal. It is not good enough to keep delaying this with lots of process and reviews. They must be compensated fully.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The court case resulted in a substantial award of compensation and the Post Office has a separate historical shortfall scheme, which it is looking at and progressing. We want to get on with this as quickly as possible. I agree with all the comments which have been made. This is an appalling scandal: it has originated over many years and we are doing what we can to try to get to the bottom of it.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, so many careers have been ruined and reputations destroyed because of the failings of the Horizon system. How has the Post Office been encouraged to strengthen its relationship with postmasters? Has there been postmaster training to help build a commercial partnership?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have spoken to the chief executive of the Post Office, as has my ministerial colleague who is responsible for this matter. We are conveying the strongest possible message that the Post Office of course needs to have a strong and robust relationship with its sub-postmasters.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to be here; I thought I might have to be scratched as my train was late. The Minister has said that there was a substantial award against the Post Office, but every noble Lord who has spoken has pointed out that most of that went on legal fees. Is it not the duty of the Government to properly compensate the people who have incurred this loss?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am pleased that the noble Lord’s train was not late. I understand the frustration expressed by noble Lords. When I first saw the award, I shared some of that frustration, but that was the process and that was the judicial outcome. There is a separate historical shortfall scheme, which the Post Office is following. We believe that this is the appropriate way for compensation to be awarded.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Digital Evidence
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hayward
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made towards finalising a digital evidence policy for access to complainants’ and witnesses’ mobile phones, particularly in relation to cases of alleged rape and sexual assault.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, cross-government work continues to ensure that complainants and witnesses are asked only to provide what is necessary and proportionate to investigate crime. Policing and the Attorney-General will publish new and updated guidance and the Home Office will work with policing to ensure that this is enabled by appropriate technology and training.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, there is a sense that, in recent years, police policy in sexual offence cases has swung from favouring one side to favouring the other. Following recent court cases, and the need to review how police deal with digital evidence, can my noble friend and the Home Office officials help ensure that both the alleged victim and the accused have fair and reasonable access to all relevant communications at all times?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I share my noble friend’s sentiment. While rape and sexual assault are devastating and serious crimes, we expect all investigations to be conducted thoroughly and fairly to ensure equal access to justice for both victims and defendants. We are engaging with partners, including the NPCC, the CPS and the College of Policing, to ensure that the police have the appropriate framework, technology and training to strike the right balance between a victim’s right to privacy and reasonable lines of inquiry.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the important Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was one of policy, but there is a prior and more fundamental question of legality. Can the Minister tell the House what is the specific legal foundation for taking rape complainants’ phones? She will know that, to comply with the Convention on Human Rights, this kind of intrusion into personal privacy needs not just to be necessary and proportionate; it has to be in accordance with the law, as well. Mere consent will not work, not least when that consent is given in exchange for the right of something as serious as a rape complaint to be taken forward.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The question of legality is good and pertinent. The ICO found that there is a complex legislative interplay in this area. Officers should be extracting data from victims and witnesses only when it is strictly necessary as part of the investigation. We are working with the police and the CPS to ensure that the proposed framework meets both the requirements of officers to fulfil their lawful duties to pursue all lines of inquiry and to meet their duties of disclosure, as well as providing clarity and transparency about the safeguards and assurances to complainants on their right to privacy.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the recent Court of Appeal case makes the issue of examination of the contents of mobile phones and other electronic devices of both complainants and accused far more complex. It is not simply a question of the police investigators receiving additional training. Quite often, the Crown Prosecution Service instructs officers to carry out further investigation. What co-ordination is taking place between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the training is consistent, both for the police and the CPS, and is in line with that Court of Appeal guidance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: there has to be consistency and training has to be sufficient across the piece. The CPS, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working through this together. The rape review, led by the Home Office, the Attorney-General’s office and the Ministry of Justice, is considering fully the reasons for a drop in referrals, to which the noble Lord has alluded in the past, and whether the digital disclosure is part of this.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, earlier in my career, from 1982 to 1988, I was the UK representative on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Interestingly, when we had meetings in Brasilia and in adjoining countries in South America, I was very impressed by how much more real help was available for the victims of such bad situations. I support the view that we should do everything we can to stay ahead of these needs. While I have listened to the various technical points raised, will the Minister bear in mind that this would really help women who are in a very desperate situation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend is right that this could indeed help to clinch a case one way or another. At the heart of this is that police and prosecutors have a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry in every investigation. Increasingly, evidence is coming digitally. In response, the police have to ensure that they are acting in a way that is proportionate, but which also protects privacy, as talked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, has called on the police and the CPS to implement the ICO’s recommendation of introducing a code of practice to prevent excessive and disproportionate requests for data, as real victims could otherwise be deterred from pursuing the justice they deserve? Will she accept recommendation 1 of that report, as she seemed to indicate earlier, that the Government should strengthen the current legislative framework by producing a statutory code, or other equivalent measures, to ensure that the law is sufficiently clear and foreseeable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The public consultations on the Attorney-General’s Office’s updated disclosure guidance and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act code of practice ended recently, and the AGO is seeking to implement them later this year. It will implement the recommendations made in the 2018 disclosure review and the Justice Select Committee report on disclosure published in July 2018.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Will the review which the Minister mentioned consider whether there is a differential effect on women raising complaints because of the way in which digital data is used by police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am sure that it will take such things into account, perhaps particularly the anxiety that women might feel when handing over something that is so much more about our lives in general now than just being a phone. That is where the balance must be struck. We want women to come forward. Rape is such an underreported crime, and we want people to come forward, not to feel hindered.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Rape prosecutions have fallen to a record low. Does the Minister think that this is a result of the Met’s intransigence about data grabbing from victims’ phones, the CPS’s ego-driven attempt to improve its conviction rate, or perhaps the Government’s swingeing cuts?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness obviously has firm views about all three areas, but the rape review will consider all the reasons behind recent drops in referrals—they are low anyway—and charges, prosecutions and convictions of rape cases, so the impact of digital disclosure is being considered as part of that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In the light of the recent legal challenge and the change of stance by the National Police Chiefs’ Council through withdrawing the digital data extraction forms, what early evidence is there that the experience of the legal system for victims of rape is now actually improving?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there is clear evidence. I am saying here that the Government are doing a number of things across a number of areas to make it easier for people to come forward, to be listened to, and for evidence to be gathered in a proportionate and non-intrusive way. Digital extraction is one part of that, but we would not want that to impede a woman’s—or man’s—willingness to come forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating virtually, but all Members are treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
We now come to the Motion in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker. The Procedure Committee agreed that this type of business should be conducted as physical proceedings only, with no opportunity to participate virtually other than by the mover, in this case the Senior Deputy Speaker. There is no speakers’ list, but Members present in the Chamber are entitled to participate. However, the Procedure Committee guidance requests any Member intending to speak on such Motions to give notice in advance.
Hereditary Peers’ By-elections
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Further to the Order of 23 March, that Standing Order 10(6) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be suspended until Thursday 31 December 2020.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, this Motion will further delay outstanding hereditary Peers’ by-elections until the start of 2021. Standing Order 10(6) states that by-elections must take place within three months of the vacancy occurring. On 23 March, the House agreed to suspend these provisions until 8 September, which at that time was expected to be the first day back after the Summer Recess. On 16 July, the Procedure and Privileges Committee met and agreed that a further suspension until the end of the year was necessary. The Motion before the House today gives effect to that decision.
The current state of the pandemic makes this suspension necessary for a number of reasons, including the difficulty of holding hustings, of allowing Members to vote in person in whole-House by-elections, and indeed for newly elected hereditary Peers to come in to take the Oath in person before contributing. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to comment, but I wonder if other noble Lords wish to speak before I do.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I will go through the short list that I have. I have been notified that those Members who want to speak are the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Newby, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I therefore now call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I thank the Lord Speaker. I hope that we should not infer from what the Senior Deputy Speaker has just said that we are going to return on 1 January; I sincerely hope that that will not be the first sitting day.
To be serious, perhaps I may say at the outset that while I welcome this opportunity, I am increasingly convinced that we need to up our act in this Chamber. It is disgraceful that so few Members are allowed to sit in here. It would be very easy to have at least three Peers on this Bench, or to have one on each of certain other Benches. Depriving Members of your Lordships’ House of the opportunity to participate properly in debate is a disgrace and I hope sincerely that those who have charge over these things will look imaginatively at what can be done. Of course we have to remain safe, but nobody can have ultimate safety. We must have a viable Chamber that can hold the Government to account and debate more expeditiously—as it could if more of us were here—the great issues of the day.
I do not oppose this measure but I feel that it would be more sensible to heed what the Lord Speaker has said about the numbers in this House and to delay further by-elections indefinitely—perhaps until a proper and definitive decision has been made on the Grocott Bill. I am sorry not to see my friend the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in his place. It is very important to underline that the continued participation in this House of any existing life Peer is not and must not be threatened by that Bill. We have valued colleagues and I hope that they will be here for a very long time, but by-elections that sometimes produce more candidates than electors, a point which has often been made, do not enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House.
We need to look carefully at how we admit Members to your Lordships’ House. Today we have welcomed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and I am only sorry that his supporters had to stand at a distance from him. If ever there is proper social distancing in this House, it is when a new Peer is introduced, so it is farcical that the right reverend Prelate’s two supporting Bishops had to stand on the steps of the Throne. As we begin to introduce new Peers over the next two or three weeks, I hope that there will be a sensible arrangement whereby the supporters are able to support. I hope that they will be able to be robed, but if not, at least the Peer being introduced should be robed and the others should be here. I hope very much that the Lord Speaker will be able to use his considerable persuasive powers to ensure that that happens.
We do believe that too many are coming in, but each one will be courteously and individually welcomed, as is always the case and as it should be. However, we have an underlying problem with numbers, and the sooner that the full House can have another proper debate on the Burns report and on the wise words of our Lord Speaker, the better. I hope sincerely that we will soon reach a stage where, if someone is given a peerage, he or she does not automatically come in immediately. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester came in because he has been waiting for a considerable time. There is a finite limit on the number of Lords Spiritual, at 26, which includes the two archbishops and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The others have to wait their turn. I believe that we can take an example from that.
I also believe that Prime Ministers should be able to give a peerage without a seat in the House of Lords, because the Prime Minister himself has created an extra problem for your Lordships’ House. All of these things should be looked at together in the round. It would be a good idea if the Lord Speaker asked the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to bring an updated report before your Lordships’ House in order to re-emphasise some of the existing recommendations and perhaps introduce new ones, and for us as a proper House of Lords to debate. The Government should then listen to what the Lords have said.
It is entirely possible for your Lordships’ House to refuse to admit somebody. A peerage has been given but we do not have to sanction immediate entry. There is precedent going back to the reign of Queen Victoria, when she tried to create a life Peer—in 1862, I think. I am not suggesting that we invite a confrontation by doing that immediately, but that in the interests of the House we have to do two things: first, to demonstrate that we are a proper, functioning House—which we are not at the moment—and secondly, to try to ensure a membership that is more in line with the other place.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment. As your Lordships will be well aware, I am not a supporter of the Private Member’s Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and am sure I never will be, unless circumstances change and House of Lords reform has by then been completed, which was the condition on which the hereditary noble Lords came to this House in 1999. In the meantime, there is room for more than one respectable view on the present circumstances. I do not, therefore, oppose the present proposals but I am not particularly strongly in favour of them.
Lord Newby (LD)
I support this Motion for the reasons given by the Senior Deputy Speaker, and because at the moment no elections to any public office are being held. Elections were postponed in May and no local council by-elections are being held. If the only election at this point was the hereditary peers by-election in the House of the Lords, it would make us look even more foolish—if that were possible—than we already do.
I very much hope that this is a stopgap measure. The strong balance of opinion in the House is that this system should be done away with, and we need to make progress. We are in a difficult position, in that Private Member’s Bill debates are not taking place. I think it is the Procedure Committee that needs to take an in-principle view on this—given the ways of your Lordships’ House, and having been here only 20 years, I am not quite sure about that. Now that we are more back to normal, we need to get more back to normal in dealing with Private Members’ Bills. Then, we could deal with the Grocott Bill, because at the moment it is in limbo, and we need to move on it.
Until recently it was possible to argue that abolishing by-elections for hereditary Peers altogether should not go ahead because it was being beastly to the Conservative Party, which would lose disproportionately. However, the profligacy of the Prime Minister in his recent appointments list—however unwelcome in so many ways—means that the Conservatives can no longer feel unfairly done by. I hope, therefore, that the Government and all their Back-Benchers will review their position and support permanent abolition of by-elections for hereditary Peers.
Lord Balfe (Con)
We are clearly a long way from being back to normal. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Cormack, because we need to get back to normal. We could get many more people in this Chamber, but we also need some willpower behind the need to get back to normal. A certain lassitude and reluctance to get things done seems to have descended on us. We certainly should not be having by-elections until we get back to normal. The Procedure and Privileges Committee will meet in December, I believe—certainly before this new Motion expires on New Year’s Eve. The middle of a vacation does not, in any case, seem a very good date for it to expire, particularly since the Deputy Lord Speaker may, in the tradition of his country, be somewhat busy on New Year’s Eve.
I would like the Procedure and Privileges Committee to look at the need for these by-elections and whether we should make time for the Grocott Bill to be heard. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, had to say, but the Grocott Bill will not remove a single Peer from this House: it allows them to die away, over the course of half a century. Some would say that that is an extremely generous way to treat them, but it has nothing to do with the Conservative Party.
We have to start standing up for ourselves. My noble friend Lord Cormack made reference to the Library and the rule brought in when Queen Victoria created a life Peer, and that was turned down. It goes back a lot further than that, however. I read the Library report, but there was also something in the New Statesman and I asked the Library for an account of what had happened in relation to life Peers. I read a debate from around 1860, I think, and I can inform the House that life peerages go back to the reign of Henry III, in the 13th century.
There have been regular life peerages. They used to end them by chopping off the heads of the Lords when they fell from favour. This is no longer recommended procedure, but I have had advice from an extraordinarily senior source to the effect that the sovereign creates but the House sits, and we would be within our powers to amend our Standing Orders to create a queue for Peers waiting to take their seats, as my noble friend Lord Cormack suggested. The size of the House would be determined and there would be a Burns-style distribution, based perhaps on previous elections or other criteria: there would be an allocation to each party.
At the moment I often look at the ranks of the Labour Party—my former party—and I feel a bit sorry for them, because they could do with strengthening, frankly. Democracy in this House relies on having a strong Opposition, not just strong Conservative Benches; it needs to be much wider than that.
I would therefore like to see this Motion passed and the noble Lord, Lord Burns—or, if he thinks it is a poisoned chalice, someone else—to look, in the way suggested, at the means by which this House can implement the desires it endorsed at the time of the Burns report. We have weapons in our armoury that could be used. Although it saddens me to say so, I do not think that the present Prime Minister will follow our advice unless there is some strength behind it—the ability to say, “No, you cannot do that” and the powers to stop it. Otherwise, we will be ridden roughshod over. I therefore support the Motion. I ask the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider coming back to this House before the end of December with its thoughts, and that this House look at limiting our numbers, getting a legislative or rule-based way of doing it, and saying to the Government, “Fine, you create, but we will admit”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
This has been a rather wider-ranging debate than either I or probably the noble Lord, Lord McFall, as Senior Deputy Speaker, anticipated. I agree with the point the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made about the Prime Minister not listening to advice. I think the only advice he listens to is that of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Cummings. Perhaps if we could persuade him, we might have more success in him treating the House and Parliament with some respect.
I had not expected the debate to go back to the 13th century. The House of Lords sometimes looks backwards rather than forwards, but it does not often go quite so far back. I think this illustrates the scale of the problem. We are dealing with something here and now, and the Motion before us has my full support. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the most telling point. If local government elections have been stopped around the country and the public are not entitled to elect, it would be nonsensical for an unelected House to elect one of its few elected Members to this place.
I want to put on record that this is a policy issue. This is not about the merits or otherwise of any individual who serves in this House, by whichever route they come in. All Members of your Lordships’ House are welcomed. In fact, most of us really do not know who are the life Peers and who are the hereditary Peers, except those who make an effort to defend the continuation of the hereditary principle ad infinitum with the temporary position introduced in 1999.
I disassociate myself from some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which is unusual. We all want to get back to working as normally as possible as soon as possible, but we can do so only in realms that make us safe. Indeed, my understanding is that no Member of your Lordships’ House has wanted to speak physically but not been able to attend physically. We have to respect those who for many reasons—whether for travel or because they live in hot-spot areas or for their own medical conditions—wish to participate remotely. I think we do better than the House of Commons in that regard.
Finally, on the comments made about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, he was unable to be with us today. For very understandable reasons, he would want to be here. I am sorry the noble Lord made that comment. It would be remiss of me not to mention his Bill. It has had the overwhelming support of your Lordships’ House on many occasions. It is not fit for today’s House of Lords to have by-elections for hereditary peerages. The only reason we do not have that Bill, and have the Motion before us today, is that the Government do not want it. We have invited the Government many a time to say, “We will help give this a speedy passage through Parliament”, but because of the processes, a few Peers who do not support it have blocked that Bill with parliamentary vandalism tactics. We will return to that Bill, but I make a plea to the Government. It is a Bill that has the overwhelming support of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, gave a way forward on the size of the House, and that is one issue, but the Motion before us has nothing to do with that. It is about having a sensible process: we should not have by-elections to your Lordships’ House in the current circumstances. It has my full support.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I have not received notice that anyone else in the Chamber wishes to speak, but does anyone else in the Chamber wish to take part? No. If that is the case, I call the Senior Deputy Speaker to reply.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, I thank Members for their comments and for the history lesson, which I followed with great interest, but I remind them that the Motion before the House relates to a suspension of the Standing Order relating to by-elections. I am very happy for Members to write to me on the relevant wider issues they wish to see the Procedure Committee looking at, and I will certainly take a report back to the Procedure Committee as a result of the wider debate today. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is not in favour of these proposals or the Grocott Bill.
It is my information that the Lord Speaker’s Committee has agreed to meet again to consider the latest situation—but, again, that is not relevant to the Motion. The points made today about delaying by-elections indefinitely, with some individuals saying they should be abolished, are certainly policy issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, noted. I am content to take any comments, including those today, back to the Procedure Committee for discussion. We will meet regularly. We are meeting in the next two weeks and then in the first half of October. We have a number of meetings before the Christmas Recess, so the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, can be reassured that there is sufficient time for us to look at these issues. With that, I beg to move.
Kickstart Scheme
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible.]—young people not in full-time education or employment. We have been urging government to introduce an equivalent to the last Labour Government’s Future Jobs Fund, which was shown to be so effective in getting young people into jobs, so we welcome the Kickstart Scheme, but it must offer a route to real jobs for those most in need. How will the Minister ensure that these are genuinely new, additional jobs? How will she ensure the scheme is taken up by employers of all sizes in all regions of the UK?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She has started us on a very important issue to do with the Kickstart Scheme. The jobs secured through the Kickstart Scheme will go through a very rigorous process. One of the major benefits of the new Kickstart Scheme is the involvement of the private sector. We will ensure that the jobs provided under Kickstart will be good quality. We believe the best chance for a sustained job will come from taking part in the scheme. The employers will have a chance to see if they can place participants permanently in their establishments.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
While it is incredibly important to get young people into work, small businesses are struggling to make sense of how they can access this scheme—yet the poster child is Tesco, which is taking on people, growing and benefiting from coronavirus and will now get free members of staff. How can the Minister ensure that those people taken on at government cost would not have been taken on in any case by Tesco and that they will get some kind of qualification or hope of a job at the end of this?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am pleased to say that the latest briefing I have had today is that a range of companies wish to take part in Kickstart—large companies, as the noble Lord suggested, and small companies, as well as charities. There will be a rigorous process to follow to ensure that those jobs are additional and not previously advertised. I am sure the process we go through will result in good-quality opportunities for our young people.
Lord Bates (Con)
Prior to my noble friend becoming a Minister, she had devoted much of her life to helping some of the hardest-to-reach and troubled young people in the country find their way into the dignity of work. How will she ensure that the Kickstart programme supports our most vulnerable young people, who already face the greatest barriers to employment, and does not leave them to fall further behind?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The Kickstart Scheme really is very exciting for young people. First, they will have a work coach who will be with them throughout their journey. They will have full support from Jobcentre Plus and employer support; the HR teams will hopefully work with them. They will be able to put together a CV, understand the world of work and undertake training opportunities that enhance their employment prospects. The flexible support fund of £150 million will be deployed and, most importantly, when somebody is in a Kickstart placement, there will be regular reviews of their progress to ensure that we do not miss any opportunity to keep them in that placement, rather than them falling out. Without blowing my own trumpet, there are all the key components we deployed at Tomorrow’s People that made the outcomes so successful.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this initiative, but I would like to ask the Minister what plans they have for when it ends. The danger, of course, is that too many people will simply drop back into unemployment, as happens too often in France. I wonder whether it is possible to have continuing support at a lower level, so that there is a tapering off, as with the present furlough system? Would the Government give further thought to this?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to say—and I reiterate the points I made before—that all through the Kickstart Scheme journey, young people will have the support services of their work coach and the full support of the Jobcentre Plus system, along with their intermediaries and employers. Work coaches will continue to support claimants into work after their placements have been completed. They will not be left to drift. We want as many young people as possible to gain support from this service. On the noble Lord’s point about changing the mechanism of the programme, I am not aware of any plans to do that at present.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for those employers whose individual job needs do not amount to 30, arrangements can be put in place, as we have heard, by intermediaries. What is the process for this? Is it just a DWP recommendation? Is there a quality assurance process for recognition of intermediaries? Who has responsibility for delivering the various programmes—individual employers or the intermediary entity?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, as the sound was not great, but I think I got the gist of his question. Where employers have robust HR teams and can manage the process, they will obviously be able to bid. Where employers have only one or two opportunities, the role of the intermediary steps in. There will be a quality assurance process for their procurement. I understand that yesterday Movement to Work and the Prince’s Trust were gearing up to fulfil this role. We will make sure that the best possible people are taking part as intermediaries.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this excellent scheme and the speed with which she has put it in place. I understand why it has been necessary to focus on people who will give an opportunity to a batch of youngsters, but the real hope will be small businesses that can help one or two. Once the scheme is up and running, will she consider the ways in which small employers can engage directly? Will she also recognise that the sooner Britain gets back to work the better, because many of these young people will need support and guidance in the workplace. Does she think there are enough work coaches in place to maintain the scheme?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I can assure all noble Lords that as the Kickstart Scheme is implemented and progresses, it will be kept under constant review. If the noble Lord, or any Member of your Lordships’ House, has some idea about how it could be amended for the better, my door is always open to receive those. We are doubling the number of our work coaches. We will make sure that there are ample people to offer support on the journey. I could not agree more: the sooner we are back to work the better. Young people will receive the support they need to ensure that they make a good transition from Kickstart to work.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the proposed Kickstart programme, although I would have liked to see apprenticeships and some graduate programmes extended; this remains a glaring gap. I steered the Labour Government’s first mentoring project, the People into Management Network, for three years. It primarily targeted young Asian women, undergraduates and graduates, supporting over 500 young people with 100 leading organisations, including Microsoft, the Foreign Office, the police and others. 10 Downing Street itself provided placements, mentoring and ongoing support for three months, for a comprehensive and impactful placement experience. I am glad to hear that prolonged coaching and support will be available. Will the Minister take the opportunity to meet me and other noble Lords interested in discussing how to improve the programme?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, my door is open and I would be very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this if it helps them. If I may, I will build on a point that the noble Baroness made. With our plans for jobs, we are doubling the work coaches and putting £2 billion into Kickstart, and there will be no cap on places. We have expanded the youth offer, we are expanding the work and health programme, we are expanding the sector-based academies, and we have put an extra £40 million in for additional capacity for an online job-finding support scheme. I am very proud of what my Government are doing to make sure we help as many people as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid proceeding will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing; 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.
The House is to be in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. 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.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup any amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should give 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. We will now begin.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 7th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (7 Sep 2020)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Within six months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 are to be enforced.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister and her team for the briefing sessions arranged since Second Reading and the substantial package of materials circulated last week, including some illustrative statutory instruments, which I always find helpful in understanding how Bills will work. We will come on to those in later groups.
I know from all the legislation that I have made as a civil servant and as a Minister, and complied with as a businesswoman and a citizen, that how a new law is enforced and the resources devoted to it is almost as important as the law itself. Our amendment, the first in this group, is a probing one designed to elicit detailed information on enforcement ahead of Report. I note that there is very little in the Bill, no doubt because the enforcement provisions, penalties, powers of entry and enforcement officers responsible sit in existing legislation, but we need a road map. We need to know as much as possible now and, failing that, we need a public report to Parliament within six months, as stated in my amendment—the way the excellent Bill clerks thought that we could ensure the provision of adequate information.
As discussed at Second Reading, my general approach is that government policy should align itself more closely with the majority of public opinion, which has consistently held over many decades that more rigorous controls are needed and that the rules should be enforced fairly and firmly. This was shown unequivocally in the Brexit referendum.
There are a number of troubling issues with enforcement implications. The number of migrants seeking ever more novel ways to get into the UK illegally is growing. Last week, it was reported that a record 416 migrants exploited fine weather to make the crossing from France to England in one day, arriving on beaches all along the south coast. Immigration law can be enforced by tightening border controls or by deporting those without a right to remain in our country, yet we see repeated reports of the failure of government steps to remove migrants who have already sought asylum elsewhere or have no right to remain for other reasons. Last week, a charter flight took off for Spain that was meant to carry 20 such migrants; in the event, only 11 boarded the plane, after late legal challenges. The week before, the Government abandoned a similar flight with 23 migrants on board, after last-minute legal action. Many thousands are attracted to dangerous ways of entering the UK, because the authorities are known to be useless at enforcing the law.
We have passed many laws and regulations in recent years, including in 2014—when I had the pleasure of supporting the then Home Office Minister, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach—but enforcement has been weak. As a result, businesses, banks and landlords play a big part in policing the rules at very considerable cost to themselves—as I remember well from Tesco. Yet immigration continues to increase. There are large numbers here illegally, both putting pressure on our public services and housing and risking ill treatment and exploitation—for example, in modern slavery or in dangerous low-paid working environments.
The Bill focuses on the EEA and Switzerland, and migrants arriving from those countries are not exempt from the problems that I highlighted. There is never-ending pressure on the EU’s southern and eastern borders, and the growth of hotspots of deprivation in EU urban centres. This phenomenon, most shockingly shown by the queues across Europe a few years ago, helped to bring us Brexit. The Bill must provide the powers we need to tackle these issues properly or we will never be forgiven.
Against this background, I have some questions. First, where are the enforcement provisions that will apply to the Bill and regulations made under it? What are the fines and criminal sanctions that apply and to whom? Secondly, the Bill contains powers to amend primary legislation elsewhere. Can that include enforcement provisions and how would such powers be limited? Thirdly, what are the enforcement authorities—the Border Force, the police, local authorities, the Home Office or the DWP?
Fourthly, what resources are available for enforcement and how much will they be increased? For example, the UK points-based immigration system, set out in CP 258 and at the useful briefing arranged by my noble friend the Minister, requires a huge new administrative structure post Brexit and an ESTA-style system involving millions of individuals every week. According to the department’s interesting impact assessment—thank you to the Home Office for doing one, by the way—there were 142.8 million passenger arrivals in 2018. That included nearly 41 million from the EU and 20.5 million non-EEA citizens. That necessitates a lot of checking. Add to that the pressure on our authorities of the illegal attempts I described earlier, the complications of Covid and post-Brexit trade, and you have a case for much more resource.
Fifthly, what scope is there for the use of technology to ease the obvious pressures on our enforcement? Does that also have downsides too that have been anticipated?
Finally, will the Minister take another look at the economics of deportation flights? At Second Reading, I suggested the Government take advantage of the current market to buy some small planes for this purpose. Having some experience in this area, I was not happy with the response in the Minister’s letter. Given the failure rate and the apparent ability of lawyers to delay deportation on flimsy grounds, I am sure it would be cheaper, in the longer term, than charter flights. I am clear that, given media coverage and public concern, the public would not put up with the use of scheduled or mixed flights for that purpose. This approach would generate more confidence, and we need that. I urge the department to work with the Treasury if necessary to do a proper cost-benefit analysis, rather than applying some narrow procurement mantra.
In conclusion, I support Clause 1. However, we need to be clear about the rules for enforcement and entry. The other amendments in this group cover other aspects, and I look forward to colleagues making the case for these, although I must to admit to reservations about some of them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I agree with her that we need to tackle modern slavery and exploitation in the UK and that this is something the Government need to properly fund and prioritise, focusing on the exploiters, not the victims. I am, however, speaking in direct opposition to her statement as I am opposing Clause 1.
Today marks another step in the robbing of rights from millions of Britons that they were born with and the removal of rights for future generations. Clause 1 is a key step by which freedom of movement for Britons and to Britain ends. I believe we should not allow the destruction of rights and freedoms for Britons to pass unmarked, which is why I have put down my intention to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
As I did that, I was thinking back a couple of years to a rally in the centre of Brussels, held in ankle-deep snow, where I heard from lots of Britons who had come from across the continent to talk about how freedom of movement had changed and improved their lives. In particular, I think of a woman who, when young, had upped sticks when her life in the UK had not worked out, moved to several European countries over the years, built a couple of different careers and made a full, interesting, varied life for herself. She came from a very poor area of England and from a family with few financial resources. But she had bought a cheap coach ticket, shifted across a continent and found opportunities, interesting experiences and a comfortable place for herself in the world.
The wealthy have always been able to do this and, no doubt, will always be able to. Many an aristocrat set out on the Grand Tour and, by choice, never came home. Many a black sheep from a wealthy family snuck off to the continent and rebuilt their life away from scandal. The arrival of freedom of movement meant the chance for everybody to exercise that freedom to seek the opportunities, the experiences, the enhancements of life that change can bring and the chance to meet new and different people, learn a new language and find a different culture, environment and way of life.
Making that opportunity available to all was a huge step towards balancing inequality, and now it is being wiped out. All our lives are much poorer with the loss of freedom of movement. Of course, it has also been a safety net. British builders escaping the deprivations of 1970s Britain in Germany became a stereotype, but it was a fact. In our shock-ridden, insecure and unstable world, how vital might that right have been to many in the future?
As a noble and learned Lord pointed out to me when I was discussing my intention with him, I do not have the power to simply restore that movement right for Britons. That right is granted by other states under EU membership, which we have now lost, and all those rights will go when we end the transition period at the end of this year. These are rights, incidentally, that quite a number of Members of the House of Lords have availed themselves of. Freedom of movement exercised before the end of December will continue, unless by tearing up the withdrawal agreement signed just eight months ago, as was being threatened this morning, Boris Johnson puts into question the rights of the 1.3 million Britons who thought they were secure through their existing residence in the EU. What I am proposing would keep the rights of citizens from EU states in the UK. But the principle of reciprocation is strong, and we could, in accepting these rights, expect that reciprocation.
Moving countries is something that many people will never consider. My aim will always be for a world where no one is forced to leave their home by poverty, war, discrimination or environmental crises. But there are always people for whom this is an exciting idea: for some, the possibility of escape is attractive, and for others, the possibility of a fresh start they cannot find in their birthplace is essential.
We are also denying ourselves the talents, skills and energy of people from across the continent, who, without free movement, will not have the same opportunities their elders enjoyed. I am sorry about that too.
When young British people ask me what I did to keep their freedoms and opportunities, I will be able to say I did my best to defend them. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House: how would you answer that question? I am not going to ask Members to put their votes on the line today, but I intend to in the future.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, that was indeed a passionate speech.
When I was a first-year law student at Hertford College, Oxford, we learned that apparently the Roman Emperor Caligula ordered that laws should be displayed in small letters as high up as possible to make it difficult for people to know their legal rights and obligations. Amendment 3 focuses attention on an extraordinary provision in this Bill—paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1—which, if enacted, will make it impossible for people today to understand their legal rights and obligations.
Paragraph 4 is concerned with the EU regulation on free movement of workers. Paragraph 4(1) is a model of clarity; it says that Article 1 of the regulation “is omitted”. However, paragraph 4(2) displays the parliamentary draftsman at his or her most coy. It is so extraordinary that it must be read out:
“The other provisions of the Workers Regulation cease to apply so far as—
(a) they are inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts (including, and as amended by, this Act), or
(b) they are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
It is simply not acceptable that when people want to know whether a provision of an EU regulation continues to apply, they must ask themselves whether the provision is
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation"
of a provision of the immigration Acts. This is drafting so opaque that it puts a brick wall between the individual and the law which applies to him or her. It is drafting so lazy that it is comatose. The same woeful drafting technique also appears in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, a provision addressed in Amendments 4 and 5 in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I support. If the Government want to ensure that provisions of a regulation cease to apply, they should say so with clarity.
Amendment 3 is in my name, and in the names of two other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, our chair, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith. The Constitution Committee’s report, published last week, drew attention to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 as unacceptably vague and inevitably productive of legal uncertainty. We quoted the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Adrian Berry, the barrister chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. He said of this provision:
“You need to make better laws. Make it certain and put on the face of the Bill those things that you think are going to be disapplied because they are inconsistent with immigration provisions.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 9/6/20; col. 52.]
I agree. Basic standards of legislative drafting need to be upheld. Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 is way below what is acceptable. I can think of no precedent for such a provision.
I hope that the Minister says that she understands the objection to this provision and that she will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. I give due warning that if the Government do not address this concern, and if other noble Lords share my concern, I will return to this topic on Report.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment and the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I apologise if the Committee starts its debate on another report from the Constitution Committee before this section is concluded.
In many respects this is a skeleton Bill, and in this area it changes significant amounts of primary legislation into secondary legislation, therefore making it open to less effective parliamentary scrutiny when powers are used. If something needs to be changed because of inconsistency, then the face of the Bill is the place to put it, but here we are with the concept of inconsistency so subjective and vague that it is difficult to imagine how a court would interpret it. Is
“otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”
restricted to precluding the operation of the Act, or does it extend to casting doubt on provisions in this Act? What is it supposed to mean?
In our report on Brexit legislation, the Constitution Committee said that
“delegated powers should be sought only when their use can be clearly anticipated and defined”,
yet in this Bill we get terms such as “appropriate”, “in connection with” and the ones which I have just quoted. It is an unsatisfactory way of drafting, and I am bound to wonder what instructions were given to the parliamentary draftsmen when they worked on this section.
The Constitution Committee has had quite a bit of discussion over the last couple of years about the drafting of legislation and the circumstances in which parliamentary draftsmen should say, “No, this is not a way in which we write laws, this is not acceptable”, and if a dispute arises, then not only departmental Ministers but also law officers should be involved in defending the basic principles of law. Having looked at these provisions, which I hope the Government will find a way to remove, we concluded that
“they risk making a complex area of the law even more difficult to navigate and understand for practitioners and individuals alike”,
and that they threaten to
“frustrate essential ingredients of the rule of law.”
These seem to me to be compelling arguments for the Government to have more thought on this issue.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the proposed new clause in Amendment 60, which has cross-party support and is sponsored by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Garden of Frognal, and Lady Morris of Yardley, is largely self-explanatory. If accepted, it would continue allowing minors to travel from the European Union, other European Economic Area states and Switzerland to the UK on identity cards rather than passports beyond 31 December 2020.
Large numbers of junior nationals from these jurisdictions travel to the UK every year for school exchange visits, English language courses, adventure holidays and a range of sporting and cultural activities. Last year over 150,000 European Economic Area juniors travelled to the UK for English language courses alone, many of them travelling in groups for study programmes that lasted for less than two weeks. This is an invaluable cultural and educational exchange that builds friendships and fosters good will between the UK and other nations. Most of these students currently travel on identity cards. Many do not own passports but travel freely on identity cards throughout the EU and EEA states with no need for passports.
A survey last year by English UK, the trade association for English schools, showed that, in 2019, 90% of under-18 EU students who came to this country did so on an identity card to study at colleges accredited by the British Council, an organisation on which I served as a deputy chair for six years. The parents of these under-18s do not want to go through additional bureaucracy or incur the cost of getting a passport, having saved for the cost of the trip itself. Furthermore, if just one junior due to travel in a school exchange group is without a passport, the viability of the whole visit could be put in jeopardy. If this travel on identity cards ceases, the UK will lose out to other countries and its position as a popular destination could decline. This new clause would help to rectify the situation and sustain the UK’s position as a popular destination. I emphasise that the proposed extension of identity card-based entry for under-18s coming to the UK for a single stay of no longer than 30 days in any calendar year means that this concession would be available only to those presenting little or no border security issues or risk of abuse.
Some may object that allowing the continuation of ID card travel presents the UK with an unacceptable security risk. EU citizens with settled status will be allowed to continue to travel on ID cards, so why not children coming for short-stay trips, largely travelling in large managed groups?
Furthermore, the EU passed a regulation last year to increase the security of ID cards issued in EU states. The regulation requires that within two years of June 2019, all new ID cards need to be machine-readable biometric cards. Existing cards will be phased out by 2023 if they are not machine readable. This will bring the security features of ID cards into line with those of passports.
As this small exception would be a continuation of an existing procedure, I do not believe it will be very complex to administer. If the clause is accepted, it will be welcomed by our European partners as a significant gesture of good will. It is also worth noting that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland allow travel for EU nationals on an ID card, so I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
This is rather a mixed bag of amendments. I would like to return to Amendment 1, on enforcement; a very useful amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she so clearly described, enforcement has long been one of the weakest points in our immigration system. Indeed, enforced returns have been in steady decline for years. They fell from 16,000 in 2010 to just under 7,000 in 2020—that is more than half—and that was the lowest level since records began. Voluntary returns have also fallen since 2015. Partly as a result of these failures, we now have 90,000 immigration offenders living in the community; that is somewhat more than the size of the British Army. Furthermore, more than half of them—about 55,000—no longer even bother to report to the Home Office as they are supposed to do: they have simply disappeared.
I shall make three brief suggestions about how this could be tackled. First, we should adopt a much tougher approach towards those countries that take an unreasonable attitude to taking back their own citizens—India, Pakistan and Iran come to mind, but there are a number of others. As noble Lords will know, illegal immigrants frequently destroy their documents, and these countries usually refuse to accept the biometric identity documents that the British Government produce for them. I think that our willingness to issue visas for the UK should take this attitude into account.
Secondly, we also need to retain—indeed, restore—the detained fast-track system for asylum claims that are obviously very weak. It was very effective for some years, but was quietly dropped by the Government quite recently after several years in a legal morass. Thirdly, we should be much more effective in enforcing the laws on illegal working. It is clear that this is a major pull factor for illegal immigration.
Finally, a particular difficulty facing the new immigration system is that of preventing EU visitors and other non-visa nationals working while in this country. A report to Parliament on enforcement, as proposed in this amendment, would be a valuable first step.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much regret the end of free movement rights. This has often been presented as a one-way system, as if it applied only to nationals of other EEA countries inward to the UK, but it has of course been a two-way system, and something over 1 million UK citizens have taken advantage of their free movement rights to live, work and settle in other EU and EEA countries. When I was an MEP, I was proud to work on the 2004 citizens’ rights directive, which is often called the free movement directive. We did not get everything we wanted, as the European Parliament did not have quite the rights over legislation that it has today. However, it allowed lots of people who were not particularly well off to take advantage of EU rights to move, live and work abroad—it was democratised, if you like.
I fear that there could well be resentment in future, as divisions appear between those who retain a right to move around and those who do not. I also think that some British citizens who currently enjoy EU free movement rights may not fully have taken on board what is about to hit them. When I talk about divisions, for instance, there are those who will be able to get an Irish passport. I declare an interest here: apparently—I did not realise this until a few years ago—I am already an Irish citizen because my mother was born in Dublin. I have not yet got round to applying for the passport. I put it off partly in the hope that somehow Brexit would be averted, and also because I feel a little sheepish about my right to it. But I have not had to apply for Irish citizenship, as it has sort of fallen out of the sky, courtesy of my mother—or her mother, I should say.
There will also be people with means who will be able to move abroad. We know that it is possible to buy so-called golden passports in some EU countries. There are also investor visas. One way or another, it is not going to be the rich who will be affected by the grab of free movement rights.
This Bill is largely about the future of EU and EEA citizens in the UK and them coming under immigration control, but as the organisation British in Europe so splendidly details, we must remember the difficulties for UK citizens in EEA countries.
Reference has been made to Amendments 4 and 5, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee will probably talk about. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about Amendment 3. These amendments are similar in that they are objecting to wording about powers,
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision … under the Immigration Acts … or … capable of affecting the exercise of functions”.
The two committees that have very helpfully reported to us—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee—have pointed out the legal complexity of immigration law. It is a complicated policy area. I think it was the Constitution Committee that said,
“the complexity of law had developed to the point that it was a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently—not to mention raising rule-of-law concerns as to the ability of the general public to understand the law to which they are subject.”
This is the system into which we are catapulting EEA citizens who, up to now, have enjoyed the protection of EU law. I hope they continue to enjoy the complete protection of the withdrawal agreement, but noises off in the last 24 hours have not reassured people of the Government’s commitment to upholding all the provisions of the agreement.
This is a complex area. I know we are going to talk about the Immigration Rules on a later amendment but, as this Bill does not set out the domestic immigration framework that will apply to EEA citizens, there is understandable nervousness. One of the things that people are worried about is a retrospective demand to show private health insurance—the famous “comprehensive sickness insurance”. The Minister will know that it is interpreted by the European Commission—and was always understood when we were legislating on the citizens’ rights directive—that in a country such as the UK, which has a national health service, free at the point of delivery, the right to use the NHS is the comprehensive sickness insurance for people paying tax and national insurance. They should not be required to have private health insurance. There is a lot of worry that when people come to apply for citizenship the Government will say, “Show us that you had private health insurance all the time that you have been resident in the UK.” Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
Colleagues in my party and, indeed, people in other parties believe that there should be an automatic system instead of the EU settlement scheme, which is an application system. A letter went to the Prime Minister yesterday from representatives of five parties, including my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael MP, urging the Government, even at this stage, to replace the settled status process with an automatic right to stay for EU citizens, guaranteed in primary legislation, as a declaratory system. It is something that we have persistently asked for and will not stop asking for. I see that the Minister looks dismayed.
One group—I think it was Law Society of Scotland—raised an interesting question. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this. It asked whether Clause 1 is necessary in the light of powers in the EU withdrawal Act 2018 for Ministers to repeal retained EU law. I would be grateful for her guidance on that subject.
Finally, I thoroughly support Amendment 61 on EEA citizens having access to eGates, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will speak to.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 60 to which I have added my name, can I say, as a member of the Constitution Committee and a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I agree wholeheartedly with the searing criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith? I am appalled that we should start to have laws that are incomprehensible. It might be meat and drink for the satirist, but it should be no part of our arrangements.
By contrast, the amendment to which I have added my name, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is clear, straightforward and simple to understand. The noble Baroness gave a very good account of it and its intentions so I will not repeat them now for lack of time, but I want to make a serious point. If young people—minors—are not able to come to this country without a full passport, it is unlikely, when things return to normal, that many of them will come at all. They are far more likely to go to some other English-speaking country—one thinks immediately of the Republic of Ireland or even Malta. One might even think of the Netherlands, where it seems to me that they sometimes speak English better than we do.
Be that as it may, this is a very real worry. It is bad enough that young people have suddenly stopped coming over to schools and organisations as a result of Covid-19. Such organisations are in dire straits and we do not want to put some ghastly obstacle in their way as things gradually return to normal. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look carefully at this to see if we can simply have the identity cards, which are used at the present time and are simple and easy to use. They would be using only those that are properly instituted by the various countries of the EEA and Switzerland.
There is a further problem, looking forward. Many people first come to this country as a youngster on an exchange. Very often they will return, perhaps for higher or further education. We do not want to cut that off at the beginning. That would be extremely short-sighted.
Some areas of the country have a number of language schools. I am thinking of where I live in East Sussex where, within quite a small area of Hastings, St Leonards and around, there are three notable language schools. The same could be said of the constituency in Plymouth of which I had the honour to be the MP. If one looks round at some of the seaside resorts, one will find a good many more there too.
This is a useful, small part of the major issues of which this Bill is party, but I believe it is very important and I hope that my noble friend will be inclined to accept the amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I support Amendment 60, which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, spoke to so ably. It is a good thing for young people to come over to learn English here or to have adventure holidays or to do an exchange. We can all remember it if we had that opportunity. Those, who like me who were teachers, knew the benefit for children, and the children and grandchildren of many of us have taken this opportunity.
I cannot think of one reason why we would want to make it more difficult for these things to continue. It is one of those things that we can all agree on—it is what we would want for young people, whether they are our own children or somebody else’s. It is not just meeting people and learning the language, there is something about it that, perhaps, you only realise as you get older. The seeds that you sow in those early years, culturally and in terms of understanding, stay with you for life. Even if you do not come back to university in the United Kingdom in a few years’ time, in your heart you remain friends with somewhere you have been as a young person. I had an opportunity to be an exchange student in America when I was doing my teacher training. It has had a huge effect on me throughout my life. There is an affection, a loyalty and an understanding that I have never lost. Why would we want to make it difficult in the future for more children to have an opportunity like that?
There is a problem with the Bill. I do not think it is intentional, but an unintended consequence of the rules and regulations. It is not just a few young people who would be affected; most young people in this group travel with identity cards rather than passports, and that certainly makes it easier for the group organisers. If a card is lost, it is easier to replace it when you are abroad than it is to replace a passport. Quite simply, it is an extra cost, and parents will have choices—there are English-speaking nations other than ours that their children could visit. Therefore, it will make a difference. Schools are already trying to recruit for next year and they will be put at a disadvantage because we are now putting a further barrier in the way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, outlined the solution very clearly. Along with people who are here with European Union settlement status, for the next few years—at least, while we think this through—there should be the opportunity for people to make this kind of journey, restricted to 30 days once a year and very often to language schools approved by the British Council, with an identity card, rather than putting a barrier in their way and making them have a passport if they make such a journey.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, having been reprieved from the Woolsack, I rise to speak on Amendment 60, to which I have added my name and which was so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Morris, have also spoken persuasively.
In the post-Brexit landscape, preserving good relations with our EU neighbours is of the utmost importance. Of course, freedom of movement is ending but that does not mean that we need to create unnecessary barriers to cultural exchange and destroy all the good will and soft power benefits created by school exchange visits, English language study programmes, sports, culture, leisure holidays and the like.
As someone who has covered, among other policy areas, education, rural affairs and tourism, either from the Opposition Front Bench or as a coalition Minister and Whip—we were multitalented in coalition—I can certainly attest to the important educational role played by school exchanges and the opportunities they afford our children to experience other cultures, as well as the economic contribution that the English language teaching sector makes to, for instance, rural and seaside communities here in the UK. Equally, the sector plays an important export role, as evidenced by its membership of the Education Sector Advisory Group, run out of the Department for International Trade.
As a linguist who studied French and Spanish at university before going on to teach both languages here and in Germany, I know the value of spending time in the country of the language being learned—it really is the best way to do so. I was a child in France and a student in Spain, and I lived in Germany with my RAF husband, where, as a French and Spanish speaker, I managed to get a job teaching in a German school, so I learned quite a lot of German as well. I fully agree with some of the other arguments that have been made in support of this proposed new clause. They are also familiar to me as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group and a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
As has been mentioned, many Europeans under the age of 18 do not own passports and their parents will find it expensive, cumbersome and unnecessary, in the ordinary run of things, to obtain them. If these trips do not go ahead because one or more of the children in a group does not possess a passport, that means that UK teenagers are likely to miss out too. School exchanges are just that—reciprocal exchanges. If schoolchildren from Europe cannot travel here for lack of a passport, ours are unlikely to be hosted by their counterparts in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain or other countries.
Currently, nearly 40% of UK children in our secondary schools take part in at least one international exchange visit during their school careers. This rises to nearly 80% of teenagers at independent schools in the UK. Therefore, while privately educated children from the independent sector may go on exchanges to wealthier parts of Europe, where parents may have less financial difficulty in obtaining a passport for their children to come to the UK, pupils in state schools could be very badly affected by this.
The stated aim of the Government is to boost these sorts of trips for all British schoolchildren, given the life-changing experiences and academic opportunities that they can afford them. However, the Government can hardly be said to be promoting this if one of their first acts is to place barriers in the way of under-18s from the European mainland coming here. A simple amendment to the Bill, in the form of this proposed new clause, allowing these children to continue to come to the UK on their national identity cards for short visits, would resolve this issue. As a former member of the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs in this place, I too look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. This amendment will do the Government no harm and will generate a great deal of international good will.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I associate myself with comments made during this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I would like to ask a couple of questions in this regard.
If the purpose of the Bill is to repeal EU law on the free movement of people and if the provisions are not already enshrined in retained EU law elsewhere, can my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to explain why, as has already been mentioned, Clause 1 is required? Like others, I would like to say how much I benefited from the free movement provisions—which have been in place since 1973—as a student and then as a stagiaire in the European Commission. I went on to practise European Union law before becoming an adviser to, and eventually being elected to, the European Parliament.
I come to my main concern with Clause 1. Can my noble friend put my mind at rest that, in repealing EU law on the free movement of workers from the EEA and Switzerland, we will still have access to a constant supply of labour in essential services such as health and social care? I would also like to add food production, farming, and vegetable and fruit growing. I know that the amendments failed in the other place, but I hope that my noble friend will look very carefully at this with fresh eyes.
It is also extremely important to ensure that those whom we welcome from the EEA and Switzerland after 1 January 2021 are made to feel welcome and are employed and given access on exactly the same basis as UK nationals. In this regard, will my noble friend confirm that migrants will continue to be employed on the same basis as UK nationals? Will the principle that has existed to date of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality still apply, so that no employer can discriminate between a UK national and an EEA or Swiss national who might find employment in this regard?
I am conscious that there have already been a couple of very unfortunate cases of Covid-19 outbreaks in food processing plants, partly due to the fact that the working environment is very cold but also partly because, by necessity, the employees probably sit very close to each other. We will obviously need to revisit many of these conditions going forward, but will the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality still apply to the Bill and other provisions?
Given my background, I have some sympathy with those who have put their names to and supported Amendment 60, and I will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in replying to that debate.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who spoke to his amendment. I regret the lack of transparency and what appears to be very poor drafting, and, again, will listen very carefully to what my noble friend says in summing up on that. However, as regards this amendment, those are the questions I would like to put to my noble friend at this stage.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support what was said so authoritatively about Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. We need to hear what our Constitution Committee has said, and I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government will do this.
My purpose is to say a few brief words on Amendment 61 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before I do so, I want to say a quick word on the wider context. Admirable though the quality of this debate is, I cannot help feeling that we are fiddling while Rome burns. In Downing Street, it seems that the Government are planning to take powers in the internal market Bill to override certain provisions of the withdrawal agreement—in particular, Articles 5 and 10 of the Irish protocol. Tearing up ratified treaties is what rogue states do; sanctions usually follow. If such a proposal were put to us, I would expect us to examine it particularly stringently. I cannot recall any precedent in UK diplomatic history. What we are doing today is important, but what we might have to do then would be historic.
Turning to Amendment 61, it seems to me that it is either completely unnecessary or absolutely essential. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that it is unnecessary because the Government have no intention of making our closest neighbours stand in a queue at the frontier. If she cannot make this assurance, we must surely ask the Government to think again.
It seems highly likely that, for the next few years, the relationship with the EU will become damagingly rebarbative. That would, of course, become a racing certainty if we tore up the withdrawal agreement, but even if we do not, the disruption, the economic damage and the inevitable frontier friction—deal or no deal—is likely to drip poison into the relationship for some time to come. So we should be careful about choosing to add insult to injury. We have left the EU, but we do not need to leave Europe. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right to detect a risk, we would be right to support her Amendment 61.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 61 in this group, and I am grateful for the support that it is receiving. Clearly, the Government say that EU citizens will be allowed to continue to use e-passport gates at airports after the end of the transition period, but that is the problem. From what I can see, as a result of leaving the European Union, far from ending free movement of people, the Government are effectively opening it up to the citizens of more countries outside of the European Union, the EEA and Switzerland.
I must make it clear that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, I am in favour of free movement. The point I am making is that lack of enforcement means that, in practice, free movement will not end at the end of the transition period.
EU, EEA and Swiss nationals have been able to use the e-passport gates at UK airports because, under European Union freedom of movement rules, they have been entitled to come to the UK without restriction. With the UK’s imminent departure from the EU, and the Government’s commitment to ending preferential immigration from the EU, the Government were faced with turmoil at the UK border if EU, EEA and Swiss nationals were not able to use the e-passport gates but had to be manually checked by Border Force staff; the queues for non-EU passport holders were already verging on the unacceptably long. Rather than remove the ability of EU citizens to use e-passport gates, the Government extended their use to citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America, thereby delivering on their promise not to give EU citizens preferential immigration rights, as these are now shared with the citizens of some non-EU countries.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has raised pertinent points on which we look forward to hearing from the Minister. Like so many of the groups when we are in Committee, this is a massive catch-all group, and I sympathise with the Minister for having to cover so many bases at the end.
I completely sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in not wanting Clause 1, but we are a revising Chamber and have to take for granted that this broad power is going to be taken because it is consequential on us leaving the EU. The issue for us is what its specific and defined consequences will be. All the issues raised so far seem to be valid ones that we would wish to return to on Report if the Minister cannot give us sufficient assurance. On Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Morris said: it is vital we do not do anything to imperil the free exchange of students and young people in and out of the country. I cannot believe it is in the mind of the Government for that to happen. If this simple change in Amendment 60 can safeguard that, we should surely make that possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have spoken powerfully about Amendment 61. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the legal abuse involved in Schedule 1 were also very well made. Could I ask the Minister more about the consequences for British citizens when seeking to exercise their existing EU rights on the continent? One of the problems of legislating on this issue in real time is that it is not always clear to the House what we know and what we do not, and that will be important when we come to Report.
The big issue when we leave the EU is that the rights we take away from EU citizens are liable to be taken away from British citizens in respect of travel, work and study on the continent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, these are essentially reciprocal rights. It is hard to think that if we take the rights away from fellow EU citizens, they will not be taken away from us. The question is, what exactly are we taking away? The single biggest source of the exercise of these rights by UK citizens is those who want to travel as tourists and those who want to study, live or work on the continent. On the biggest group—those who travel—I want to ask the Minister if my understanding is correct because it will have some bearing on where we go on Report. My understanding at present is that for travel from 1 January 2021 no visa, or visa equivalents such as an ESTA, will be required for what are defined as short trips to the EU. Short trips are defined as 90 days in any 180-day period. I assume that that would be reciprocal. However, I quote from the Government website on changes from 1 January:
“You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.”
Therefore, under the current withdrawal agreement—that said, almost everyone is concerned that this could all be thrown up in the air—is there agreement that visas will not be imposed on EU citizens coming here, or vice versa for short, tourist-related trips, but it is entirely open as to what will happen about visas or permits required for longer stays or for work, study or business travel? If I have got that right, what is the regime likely to be for working longer periods and business travel, which is of huge consequence to us?
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we are legislating in the dark for the withdrawal of many rights of EU citizens coming here, it is also true that we are legislating in the dark for the rights that we are going to be taking away from UK citizens that they can currently exercise in respect of their travel and legitimate business on the continent. That is not sufficiently appreciated. Could the Minister confirm the situation? What is definitely agreed? My understanding is that short trips will definitely not be covered by visas or ESTAs. Also, what is the situation for other forms of travel, work and study, including business travel?
It may seem an unlikely alliance but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the integrity of the immigration system. There cannot be any doubt that one of the things that causes most public concern about extending the rights of people to come here is the fear that those rights will be abused. In principle, their concern about the implementation of Clause 1 is well-founded, and it does not apply to policing and monitoring of the immigration system just for EU countries, but for other countries. This amendment, which is just a probing amendment, asks for a report after 90 days on what progress Government are making and their policy on security.
As our legislative stages are a process of mutual learning, I wonder whether I could put the debate back to the noble Broness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green—particularly to the noble Lord, who is probably one of the greatest experts in the country on the detailed working of the immigration system. I can see the Minister is smiling; the noble Lord creates a great deal of work for her and others. I do not begrudge that: it is the job of people in this House and in interest groups and policy groups to see that we are well-informed. It would be useful for us to know, if they want to retable this amendment on Report, what specific changes and improvement to the policing of the immigration system they think Parliament should be considering. The noble Lord referred to recent changes to the policing and detaining of asylum seekers and illegal migrants. It would be useful for us to know what they would wish to do and see the Government report on within 90 days. That might get a more fine-grained debate on Report on what further steps we should take to police the immigration system.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches—I am on them virtually—make no bones about how much we oppose the ending of free movement. That includes both welcoming EEA citizens—the collective term which includes the Swiss for this purpose—and their families to live and work in the UK, and the equal and opposite right for British citizens in the EU. For myself, it offends my politics, my emotions, my values, my logic and, you might say, my whole outlook on life. However, I will endeavour to keep my remarks within the scope of the Bill and not to seek to reopen what has irreversibly been decided—although “irreversible” may have gained a new definition overnight—nor do I want to make a Second Reading speech.
What is relevant is that the Bill does not set out what will be in place of the current arrangements. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the importance of the integrity of the system. We might want different systems, but what we have should be robust.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord spoke in terms of enforcement—a term used in the amendment. I prefer to talk in more inclusive rather than exclusive terms. She talked about so many of the issues that we are addressing now, or failing to address. One must use the opportunity to say that the best way to address them is to create safe and legal routes to the UK. I do not want to divert on to the wider question of those who seek sanctuary, but I have to disagree with her approach and some of the language that she used.
By no means all of the new, much-heralded immigration system which will apply to EU citizens is yet in the public domain. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to UK citizens in the EU; he may see that Amendment 23, which we will come to later, may give us more of an opportunity to discuss their position. When the system is in the public domain, however, we will not be able to rely on it in the same way as we can rely on primary legislation because of the flexibility—would that be a polite word?—provided by the Bill. So much of our system is contained in rules which Parliament cannot realistically amend, and indeed often it takes an awful lot of background knowledge and experience, application and concentration to understand those rules. It is no wonder that the Government had some years ago to require a particular level of expertise to advise on immigration. The rules are difficult for most of us—other noble Lords may say that they waltz through them with no difficulty; I do not—and they are often impenetrable to those directly affected. I have too often heard Ministers say, “It is on GOV.UK.” That is not everyone’s bedtime reading. Indeed, however detailed the rules and however much they flesh out the Bill, it remains a skeleton.
My noble friend Lady Ludford and I have three amendments in this group, all to Schedule 1. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the coy but comatose draftsman—I may use that term on other occasions—and my noble friend Lord Beith asked an important question about what instructions had been given to the draftsmen and draftswomen. After all, the responsibility lies with Ministers.
Amendments 4 and 5 take out some of the most offensive words in Schedule 1, which I do not think I need to read into the record again, as others have referred to them. They are wide and imprecise; there are references to “application or operation of” provisions, and
“otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
If any of your Lordships on Opposition Benches were to produce amendments using that sort of terminology, we would quite rapidly be shot down, and rightly so, by the Government Front Bench.
A lot of functions are connected with immigration, and we will come on later to employment, renting property —the rest of the hostile environment. There are also all sorts of functions which I would accept are necessary but which I would not want brought within the repeal of
“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures”,
to which Section 1 applies.
Amendment 6 in our names would add words to the schedule by not applying it to rights which do not arise under an EU directive. Directives which do not relate to immigration include, in our view: the protection for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive—there is an amendment specifically on that—the protection for asylum seekers in the reception conditions directive 2013/33, and the protection for victims of crime in the EU victims’ rights directive 2012/29. We do not suggest that we believe that these protections are at risk, but we do not know. If the Bill remains as it is when it becomes an Act, the only way to know for certain is to test the matter in the courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was critical in the context of removals from this country of applications to the courts. However, that is what they are there for, and they are applying law that has been made by Parliament, or by Ministers subject to the rather inadequate scrutiny that parliamentarians are able to give them.
On Amendment 6—this is something that has been identified by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned the comments on the Bill by its chair, Adrian Berry—the protections are potentially at risk as what the association describes as “collateral damage”. We hope that they do not fall within the scope of the Bill, but I think it is a matter for the Government to explain what the position is. This is all about the lack of clarity, the bad rule-making, to which other noble Lords have referred, all offensive to the rule of law.
To return to the first amendment in this group, I welcome reports to Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. I am hesitant to criticise or comment on the wording of the clause, having learned from the noble Baroness that the clerks were involved in crafting it, but I am not sure that the provisions of Schedule 1 are correctly described as enforceable. A provision within six months would take us beyond the end of the year. However, I should not carp about that sort of detail because, whatever the language, I understand that the supporters of Amendment 1 are seeking to ensure that free movement ends and that Parliament is told how. We have made our views about the first part of that very clear.
Before I finish, I want to mention the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I thought the points made by noble Lords were very telling regarding the reference to soft power. I was reminded of listening to the European Union Youth Orchestra a couple of years ago in Edinburgh. That was a very special experience and it rather goes to why we are so distressed by what we are having to go along with in the Bill.
I think I have said enough not to have to refer specifically to our opposition to Amendment 1.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to address the issue of the lack of clarity in the Bill, not least in Schedule 1. I am sure we have reached the stage now where noble Lords want to hear the Government’s response. I wish to comment briefly on three of the amendments in this group, although all of them raise issues of significance, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has said. That has become clear from noble Lords’ contributions, even though noble Lords have not all been coming from the same direction.
Three days ago, we were sent a letter from the Government sharing illustrative drafts of regulations that they propose to make under the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill. One wonders why at least some of the terms of these draft regulations could not now be or already have been incorporated in the Bill and thus be open to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Schedule 1 revokes Article 1 of the EU workers regulation, which provides freedom-of-movement rights. Paragraph 4(2) of that schedule provides that other parts of the workers regulation cease to apply so far as they are
“inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”
or
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”.
This is a very broad drafting. Amendment 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke with his usual considerable authority, would remove paragraph 4(2), as it is so broad and lacks clarity. We share the concern that that amendment seeks to address.
No doubt the Minister, in giving the Government’s reply, will be giving a pretty comprehensive list of examples of how and why, in the Government’s view, other parts of the workers regulation might credibly become, first, inconsistent with provisions made by the Immigration Acts and, secondly, capable of affecting provisions made by or under the Immigration Acts.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for her thoughtful amendment. I understand noble Lords’ concern about the repeal of EU law relating to free movement set out in Schedule 1 and how that will be enforced. Before I address that, I want to pick up a question from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who wanted confirmation that the Bill was non-discriminatory. The whole point of this immigration Bill is that the whole world is treated the same, so I can confirm that.
Schedule 1 sets out a list of measures to be repealed in relation to ending free movement for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens, with the intention that both EEA citizens and their family members will fall within the scope of the Immigration Act 1971 and become subject to the UK’s immigration control—for ease of reference, I will refer to this group as “EEA citizens” during the committee debates. This will create a level playing field for EEA and non-EEA citizens. Those EEA citizens and their family members who arrive here after the end of the transition period from January 2021 must have leave to enter or remain. The Government want EEA citizens who are resident in the UK before that date, and who wish to do so, to stay, and our focus has been on helping them to apply for that status. They can apply online for the EU settlement scheme free of charge. As of 31 July, we have received 3.8 million applications, with plenty of time until the deadline of 30 June 2021.
In order to protect those living in the UK before the end of the transition period, we propose to use the power under Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to save free movement rights otherwise repealed by Clause 1 of the Bill and Schedule 1 so that those EEA citizens and their eligible family members resident by the end of 2020 but who have not yet applied to the settlement scheme will continue to be treated the same until 30 June next year. This will ensure that they are able to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline and retain their existing rights in the meantime. This includes pending the decision on their application after that deadline and pending the outcome of an appeal against any decision to refuse status under the EU settlement scheme.
During this grace period, immigration officers who encounter EEA citizens who are still able to apply under the EU settlement scheme will not take any enforcement action but may encourage them to apply by the deadline. Furthermore, we have always been clear that where EEA citizens and their family members have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We will take a flexible and pragmatic approach to this, and those who need it will be supported through the application process.
Ultimately, however, we are aiming to reach the position where EEA citizens who do not qualify for leave are treated in the same way as non-EEA citizens. As such, if they require leave to enter or remain in the UK but do not have that leave, they will be liable to the same sanctions and enforcement measures. These enforcement provisions are set out in the Immigration Acts and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has mentioned that those cover the rights of access to work, renting property and banking services. It would take a long time for me to list all the relevant provisions here, but I would be happy to write to my noble friend to set those out.
In response to my noble friend’s question on whether this Bill can be used to amend the legislation, I do not think this is the right Bill in which to make any changes to enforcement provisions, which would need to cover both EEA and non-EEA citizens because it is limited to immigration changes as a result of EU exit. However, we are actively exploring legislative options to ensure that key elements of our immigration system, including around enforcement, can be tightened up. This work is at an early stage.
My noble friend also asked me about who the enforcement authorities are. They are primarily those of the Home Office Border Force and immigration enforcement, working in partnership with the police and other government departments, including the DWP, HMRC and the Ministry of Justice.
With regard to my noble friend’s question about available resources for enforcement using technology and the economics of charter flights, which she was right to ask, planning is under way to factor in the requirements of the new points-based system and ensure that all aspects of operational resourcing, recruitment and training are fully delivered. These plans include the redeployment and/or recruitment of new staff where appropriate to deal with applications from EEA citizens. Part of our long-term vision has always been to make better use of digital technology and greater automation to improve the passenger experience while maintaining security at the border.
In terms of staffing, we will always ensure that the Border Force has the resources and the workforce needed to keep the border secure. We will also introduce electronic travel authorisations—or ETAs—for visitors and passengers transiting through the UK who do not currently need a visa for short stays or who do not already have an immigration status prior to travelling. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This will allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions to be taken on information obtained at an earlier stage as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK. Therefore, the ETA scheme will add an additional security measure while also providing individuals with more assurance at an earlier point in their time about their ability to travel. The noble Lord also asked about longer-term visit visas for EU citizens, and he is right. Arrangements for longer visas will be set out in the Immigration Rules for people coming to the UK.
On my noble friend’s question about charter flights, the majority of returns take place on commercially scheduled flights. Where a chartered flight is required, the Home Office procures the use of chartered aircraft through a broker to ensure competitive pricing and access to different aircraft and contractors depending on the requirements of the operation. We think that this blended approach provides the best value for money for the taxpayer. However, I will take her point back and ensure that it is made. I also assure noble Lords that the Home Office will be updating its published enforcement policy with regards to EEA citizens at the end of the transition period.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pressed that point about enforcing laws on illegal working, as did my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The overarching ambition of the illegal working strategy to tackle illegal working is to work with businesses to deny access to the labour market and encourage and ensure compliance. The illegal working strategy is intelligence-led and it focuses on three main areas: deterring illegal migration, safeguarding the vulnerable and protecting the UK economy,
The further report this amendment requires is unnecessary because policy guidance on enforcement is already published on the GOV.UK website. I can hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, virtually moaning from behind the screen on referring her to the website. However, I am sure noble Lords will join me in encouraging all those who are eligible to apply before the deadline expires next June. On that note, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in total to Clause 1. The clause introduces the first schedule to the Bill, which contains a list of measures to be repealed in relation to the end of free movement and related issues. Noble Lords have asked whether it is needed at all. It fulfils a purely mechanistic function to introduce the schedule. Without Clause 1, we cannot deliver on the will of the people in the 2016 referendum result; we cannot end free movement without repealing Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988.
In line with long-established practice, the detail of this future system will be set out in the Immigration Rules rather than in this Bill and it will be in place from January 2021. It is of paramount importance that, as an independent sovereign state, the UK must have the ability to forge its own immigration policy and depart from EU law. The people of the UK gave us the mandate to end free movement when they voted to leave the EU and the Government gave a commitment in their manifesto to deliver on that mandate. The people are now expecting us to uphold that commitment; Clause 1 is essential to doing so and this House should not stand in the way of delivering what is a priority for the people of this country. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, withdraws her opposition to Clause 1.
I turn now to Amendments 3 to 6. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to their amendments. Their purpose is to retain rights derived directly from EU law after the end of the transition period. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, unlike Caligula, I am not going to put the law up at a height and in small writing so that people cannot read it.
However, I know that the noble Lord has an issue with paragraph 4(2) of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies directly effective provisions of the Workers Regulation where they are capable of altering the interpretation, application or operation of any part of the Immigration Acts. His amendment seeks to remove this paragraph, meaning that provisions within the Workers Regulation, which may be inconsistent with those in the Immigration Acts, will continue to apply.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extended explanation. She talked about electronic travel authorisations and referred to The UK’s Points-based Immigration System: Further Details document. As far as ETAs are concerned, that document talks about the “border of the future” and that it is part of a phased programme to 2025. How will EU and EEA citizens using the e-passport gates be stopped from coming in if they have not provided details in advance? If it is not necessary for them to provide details in advance, why are the Government introducing ETAs for EU and EEA citizens up to 2025?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord asked about the lead-up to 2025 and the ETA. It is a new immigration system—there will be a pragmatic approach to people coming in and out of this country, because it is a whole new system and will take some time to bed in. The ETA will give both security and certainty on people coming in and out of this country.
In terms of data sets, we obviously now use exit checks; if someone has a visa, it will be on their visa how long they are able to stay. The noble Lord talked about the person who literally went in and out of Lille in one day in order to update their boarding card. He makes a very good point.
This system will take some time to bed in. I will write to the noble Lord about some of the very specific supplementary questions he has asked; I am just giving him the answers that I know off the top of my head. As for sanctions for someone who has not complied, obviously it is easier for someone with a visa, and less easy for someone doing a series of short stays.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am very sorry to correct the Minister, but she made a statement earlier that was incorrect. In response to my noble friend Lady Bennett, she said of retaining—or not taking away —freedom of movement that it was the will of the people and what the people voted for with their Brexit vote. That is absolutely not true. We voted—I voted—for Brexit for many different reasons, and freedom of movement did not particularly come up as a reason. Quite honestly, none of us understood that the Government were going to make such a shambles of it. We could not have predicted that it could be so badly handled. So please, it is not the will of the people, and it was not what people voted for with Brexit. They voted for a variety of reasons.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we did vote to leave the EU, and I do not think anyone can be in any doubt about some of the reasons. People voted for a variety of reasons, but the noble Baroness will totally understand that I am not going to get into a debate about why people did or did not want to leave the EU. I will leave it there.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her careful response to Amendment 3. It was very thoughtful—not a response off the top of her head. I am also grateful for the offer of a meeting, which I will happily take up.
The Minister gave an example of a provision in the regulations that she said was inconsistent with the immigration Acts. I accept that there may well be many such provisions. My point is very simple: spell them out in Schedule 1. Do not use this vague language of drafting which means that people cannot identify what their rights and obligations are. My amendment is not designed to keep or remove any particular right; it is simply designed to require the Government to instruct the parliamentary draftsman to produce a provision that implies basic standards of legal certainty. I hope the Minister has noted the substantial concern around the House at this lack of certainty in the drafting of Schedule 1. It is simply not good enough and it needs to be addressed. I look forward to discussing this with the Minister prior to Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I totally understand the point that the noble Lord makes about certainty. In addressing this, I should like to meet him, because I totally get what he is saying. He is not being difficult; he is just asking that we lay out the law and provide certainty.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this catch-all group of amendments. There have been some very high-quality contributions. In particular, I thank my noble friend for her careful and full answers; they have got us off to a good start.
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quoting the insights of the sociopath Caligula. However, I think he—and other noble Lords—made some good points about clarity of drafting and the complexity of immigration law, which makes its fair, efficient and firm enforcement more difficult. It also creates a great deal of work for lawyers. That is not an unvarnished advantage.
The noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Rosser, rightly referred to the use of secondary rather than primary legislation, and I am sure we will come back to that when we come to scrutinise Amendment 9.
We heard good support for the two practical amendments on minors visiting the UK using identity cards and on e-gates. The response was a bit disappointing on identity cards, but there were some very good points made about e-gates, and the Minister will obviously answer the more detailed questions on that from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Adonis.
The most powerful intervention about robust enforcement was from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whom I call a friend. He made a number of practical suggestions. I am not sure I have heard quite enough about how the Bill will be enforced or its “integrity”, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I will talk to the noble Lord, Lord Green, and we may return to the issue on Report, in the same or in some alternative form, because enforcement of the law is very important. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. 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 the debate.
Amendment 2
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Duty to commission an independent review of the social care sector in regard to the effects of section 1
(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the matters under subsection (3) and lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent panel to undertake the review.(3) The review under subsection (1) must consider an assessment of the effects of section 1 on—(a) the social care workforce;(b) the adequacy of public funding for the social care sector;(c) the ability of care sector employers to improve the pay and conditions of their employees; and(d) such other relevant matters as the independent panel deems appropriate.(4) A Minister of the Crown must, no later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make arrangements for a motion relating to the report to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require an independent review of the impact of section 1 of this Act on the social care sectors to be produced and laid before Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the General Medical Council board.
I want to return to a major theme from Second Reading: the decision of the Home Office to exclude the great majority of care workers from the new health and care visa, as they do not meet either the income or the skills threshold. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, justified this by saying that employers had to end what she described as “the easy option” of using migrant labour to undercut our own workforce “for far too long”. She also pointed to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, which has maintained that the problems in the care sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions, in itself caused by a failure to have a sustainable funding model—quite.
I certainly do not need reminding of how important skilled care worker jobs are; I want to see more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage. However, surely it is disingenuous for the Government to call for better wages and conditions, when they have so much influence on the financial health of care services. The Government are the main source of funds for local authorities; they are the direct funder of the National Health Service; and they set the conditions under which the private care market operates. The Home Office, which I have always thought of as being a bit semi-detached, is essentially saying that the Government—of which it is a part—has neglected the care sector over many years. They have been in government for 10 years now and have had a series of reviews, none of which has come to fruition.
Our own House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported that, in 2018, 1.4 million older people in England had an unmet care need. It found that publicly funded social care support is shrinking, as diminishing budgets have forced local authorities to limit the numbers of people receiving public funding. Just as demand goes up with the demographics, the funding of social care gets lower and lower in real terms.
When we turn to the workforce, we see a diverse range of nationalities and backgrounds. Some 83% of the workforce is made up of British nationalities, with 7% coming from other EEA countries and 9% from non-EEA countries. As such, the UK is reliant on a fair and balanced immigration system. Overall, however, the social care workforce is already facing a crisis, with more than 120,000 vacancies and a growing level of demand among people who need to access care services. This is a real problem for the future.
We also have the problem that the Government classify social care workers as unskilled. Unskilled? As Mencap points out, their colleagues are trusted every day with people’s lives. They are trained to provide medication, to undertake feeding, to deal with seizures and to administer first aid. They help people manage their finances, their health and their well-being, and they provide emotional support. Unskilled they are not. Yet as Unison has pointed out, many migrant workers are not included in the category of people who have had their visas extended free for a year. Many are struggling to save the large amounts needed for visa renewals.
The Minister says that staff should be paid more. I agree, but is she going to will the means? Will she commit to increasing the level of support to local authorities? Is she willing to see self-funders pay more? If she is, I remind her that if you took the current lifetime pension allowance of £1,730,000 and bought an annuity with it at age 60, you would not have enough to pay the average nursing home fee.
We are in a vicious cycle. After decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need in our care system is increasing and the pressure on unpaid carers is growing stronger. The supply of care providers is diminishing and the strain on the care workforce is continuing. And that is before these new immigration controls are imposed at the end of the year.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said that she would not be drawn on the details of the long-term social care plan which apparently the Government are still promising to bring forward. She did refer to various sides in the Commons trying to sort a consensus on the way forward, but there is not much sign yet of the Government reaching out, and given the state of the public finances, I would not bet on immediate action in any case. I refer the noble Baroness to the letter in July from the Chancellor to Secretaries of State on the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. From that, it is clear that spending will come under a huge squeeze. It is noticeable that, while the Chancellor said then that he would prioritise the NHS, no mention was made of social care at all.
The argument I put before noble Lords is this. If the Home Office is convinced that the woes of the care sector are entirely down to the sector itself, let it produce the evidence. Let Ministers agree to the quick review that I suggest in my amendment, looking at the funding of the sector and the impact of Clause 1 before shutting off an extremely valuable source of labour for this important but vulnerable part of our society. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton has her name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which we support. My noble friend is indisposed at present, but I know that she will be here in spirit. I start by saying to the Minister that I will try not to moan. I generally try not to moan. It is reasonable for her to refer a Member of the House to GOV.UK; my point was that most of the public would be bemused by the reference. I think I can see on my screen that she is nodding.
There was enthusiasm for tabling amendments quickly after Second Reading, especially on what were particularly topical issues. A health and social care visa was one such. It remains topical, as does the whole operation of the social care sector, even though it is not in the headlines quite so much. I have spoken about immigration arrangements being in the rules. The scheme set out in our Amendment 47 may not be ideal—I confess I do not think it is—but it is about pinning down the arrangements into primary legislation to make them not too easy to amend.
My noble friend Lady Brinton and I also have our names to Amendment 57, on a social care visa. Many of your Lordships will have direct experience of the work of those in social care and share what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has talked of—the importance of proper payment reflecting the level of skill, which is very significant. As it happens, I cannot praise too much someone who recently cared for a close relative. She came from Romania.
The essential core skills are not ones that can be trained into anyone; there are the practical, technical aspects of care, but you cannot train someone to care as part of their personality. They either have it or they do not. That is why so many carers, little supported, are people who look after their spouses, children or parents at home. I mention this because, last time I mentioned care at home, the Minister thought I meant domiciliary care. That is part of the subject matter of the amendment, but I depart from the scope of the Bill for a moment to recognise the dedication and sheer hard work that family members undertake, which is inadequately recognised. Other noble Lords in the debate may know how much, in pounds and pence, that work saves the state.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will explain the importance of her proposal in Amendment 66. I simply say that my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester added her name to that amendment, and she is very sorry that she cannot take part in today’s proceedings.
Also in the group is Amendment 82 of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which I thought was interesting. Some of us leap in; calmer heads propose an analysis of the issue. I suspect that will not preclude some pithy points in support of progressing with analysis.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 66 would provide for the creation of a fast-track health and social care visa for EEA and Swiss nationals who provide personal care for severely disabled people, after the end of free movement. The visa would be limited to EEA and Swiss nationals who, immediately prior to the commencement of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, had the right of free movement into the UK.
Subsection (1) of my proposed new clause says:
“The Secretary of State must provide by regulations made by statutory instrument for the introduction of a fast-track health and social care visa for a relevant person who provides personal care for severely disabled people in the United Kingdom.”
Subsection (2) defines “fast-track” and “relevant person”:
“In this section, ‘fast-track’ means processed by UK Visas and Immigration within three weeks from the day on which the applicant provides their biometric information, and ‘relevant person’ means an EEA or Swiss national who immediately prior to the commencement of section 1 and Schedule 1 had the right of free movement into the United Kingdom.”
The proposed new clause would provide for the introduction of a fast-track health and social care visa for a person who provides personal care for severely disabled people. The visa would be limited to EEA or Swiss nationals who, immediately prior to the commencement of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, had the right of free movement into the UK. This is a probing amendment to see what consideration the Government have given to extending their new health and social care visa to persons who provide personal care for severely disabled people in the United Kingdom.
In July, the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that a
“new Health and Care Visa will be launched this Summer, creating a new fast-track visa route for eligible health and care professionals and delivering on a key manifesto commitment.”
However, the Government have been criticised for excluding care workers from being able to apply for visas designed to fast-track those coming to the UK to work in the health and care sector.
On 13 July, the Home Office released details of the UK points-based immigration system, which will come into effect from 1 January 2021. Under the new system, the health and care visa will allow people working in eligible occupations, who speak English and have a job offer, to come to the UK. Under this visa route, workers and their families will gain fast-track entry to the UK, with reduced application fees and dedicated support, the Government said. Those who are eligible to apply and their dependants will also be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge—a move that has been welcomed by doctors. But applicants must meet a salary threshold of £25,600, which is €28,200 or $32,000, to be eligible to apply for the visa, unless they are entering a shortage occupation, such as nursing and medicine. The NHS workers’ union, GMB, said that this threshold would mean that many NHS cleaners, porters and support staff will not qualify for the visa.
The Government have faced a backlash because social care workers are not eligible to apply for the visa, although the Migration Advisory Committee, on whose advice much of the new system is based, recognised the workforce shortage faced by social care in its most recent report and did not recommend that care workers be added to the list of shortage occupations. I cannot understand this. Perhaps the Government can tell us why. Instead, the committee said that it hoped the Government’s forthcoming Green Paper on social care would provide more clarity on the future of the sector in the UK and contain concrete proposals to improve terms and conditions for care workers. Waiting is not acceptable. There is a crisis.
Critics have said that the exclusion of care home staff from a post-Brexit, fast-track visa system for health workers could prove to be an unmitigated disaster and may increase the risk of spreading coronavirus. Professor Martin Green, the chief executive of Care England, which represents the largest private providers, has said that the decision amid the pandemic in which 20,000 people have died in UK care homes has the potential to destabilise the sector even further, with disastrous consequences, confirming that there could be no special treatment for carers coming to the UK from the rest of the world.
The Government have said that they hope that Britons will fill the shortfall of around 20,000 workers, equating to 10% of all posts. Currently, 17% of care jobs are filled by foreign citizens. In the debate on Second Reading, I drew attention to this when I said:
“There is a danger that people who cannot get work of their choice are pushed into doing care work, with such horrifying results as happened at Whorlton Hall near Barnard Castle, Thors Park in Essex and Winterbourne View near Bristol, where patients were abused and bullied. This cruelty was exposed by ‘Panorama’. We must surely try to prevent this sort of thing happening again. I hope the Government will listen before it is too late.” —[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2251.]
The health and care visa has been designed to attract the brightest and best from around the world. It has been criticised for excluding front-line care home workers and contractors. It has been pointed out that the minimum salary threshold means that many cleaners, porters and other support staff will not qualify. This will discriminate against severely disabled people living in their own home who need paid carers. The Government are discriminating against any care workers.
Vic Rayner, the executive director of the National Care Forum, has said that in London, where around 38% of care workers are non-British, the policy could be “an unmitigated disaster.” She said:
“‘We have 122,000 vacancies, growing demand for our services, and then the tap is turned off like this … It is not good news at all. What you need for good care is a stable, skilled and plentiful workforce. And in the context of Covid-19, where you are trying to minimise movement of staff, any shortages might increase movement of staff and use of agency staff, which we are trying to avoid.’”
Robin Hall, the secretary of the Hampshire Care Association, has said that a shallower pool from which to recruit could drive up wages, which, without greater public funding, would mean fewer staff employed per resident. She said:
“‘That will damage the quality of care we can deliver … You also may have to get less choosy about who you employ, and that’s a dreadful thought. A lot of our EU staff are highly skilled. They are smart, articulate and speak three or four languages. We don’t get that quality of applicants from the UK because of the status the profession has.’”
With the advances in medical treatment made over the years, many severely disabled people are living in the community in their own home. Many of them need live-in or daily carers. We also have an increasing elderly population. A bright young man called David who broke his neck in a rugby accident and was paralysed from the neck down had been cared for by his mother. As she got older, her arthritis became worse. David was fearful that he might end up in a care home, which was something he could not accept. David lived in a comfortable bungalow with a garden and a lily pond. One day he was found drowned in that pond. In desperation, he had driven his electric wheelchair into it to end his life. Surely we do not want more cases like that.
Good care workers who work in people’s homes must be dedicated to the job, get satisfaction from it, be honest, skilled, compassionate and flexible. Caring for severely disabled people is not for everyone, but those who undertake these positions are special and they should be valued, not treated as “also rans”.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on Amendment 66, and I hope that it will be taken seriously.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 82, I want to support strongly the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who spoke with his usual passion when presenting his amendment. I hope the Minister will respond to that.
Amendment 82 can be taken in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the exceptional contribution and sacrifice made by our health and social care workers every day in protecting and caring for people in the community. It has also made clear how much we depend on our international workforce. Around 29% of doctors working in NHS hospitals and almost 14% of healthcare workers overall in the United Kingdom are from overseas. International workers account for approximately one-sixth of care workers in England.
The pandemic has had a profound impact on all aspects of our health services, but I draw the attention of the House to its impact on the all-too-often overlooked sector of social care. Between March and July this year, there were 30,500 excess deaths among care home residents as well as 4,500 excess deaths among people receiving care in their home. Figures from the Office for National Statistics also show that social care workers are among the occupational groups at the highest risk of Covid-19 mortality. The United Kingdom recorded the second highest number of deaths among healthcare workers in the world, second only to Russia, and a significant number of those deaths were among social care workers. These figures highlight the immense sacrifice and heartbreak that these workers have faced while trying to do their job in a system that was already overstretched. The vital contribution they make to the health system has been overlooked and undervalued for too long.
Adult social care is facing stark recruitment and retention challenges, with an estimated 122,000 vacancies, while the demand for social care workers is expected to rise in line with the UK’s ageing population. The CQC’s State of Care report concludes that workforce shortages in adult social care are
“affected by the lack of value given to social care by society and disproportionate levels of pay.”
The pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that we need to value our social care workforce more. In a sector where one in six of the workers are from overseas, any changes to the UK immigration system that could deter or prevent those who want to work in this country are of deep concern. There is a risk of significant implications for the staffing of health and social care services, as well as the quality of care and patient safety in the future. While measures to help recruit doctors to the NHS, including the fast-track NHS visa, are welcome, the lack of any route into the UK for social care professionals is extremely concerning. The average salary for a care worker in England is between £16,400 and £18,400, which means that individuals would fail to meet even the lower salary threshold of £20,480 to enable them to trade points to be eligible to work in the United Kingdom.
The current proposals for new immigration controls risk exacerbating the current social work workforce shortages and, as a result, putting some of the most vulnerable members of our society at risk, as already mentioned. Social care staff play an integral role in the efficient and safe running of the health service, and it is vital that any future immigration system recognises this. We owe our overseas health and social care staff a huge debt of gratitude. We should do all we can to keep these dedicated workers and ensure that there are no barriers to future recruitment.
It is important to grow our domestic workforce to help to meet workforce challenges, and to improve working conditions, pay and training as part of that. However, we must also provide an entry route for overseas staff who want to join such a vital part of a healthcare system that would struggle to cope without them. There is a consensus across healthcare organisations, as well as growing support for the idea from parliamentarians right across the political spectrum, that social care needs a long-term, sustainable solution that includes better funding. In the short to medium term, the immigration system must include a migratory route that meets the needs of the social care sector, which is facing severe challenges. We now need the political will to act and reverse this public policy omission.
I therefore hope that my amendment will be supported. It is supported from outside very strongly—by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, UNISON, Independent Age and the Royal College of Physicians. It places a duty on the Government to report on migratory options for health and social care workers ineligible for the skilled-worker route.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out in detail the options for overseas workers excluded from the skilled-worker scheme, within a period of 30 days beginning on the day on which this Bill is passed. It would need to specify a migratory route for care workers, home workers and healthcare support workers. It is time we recognised the vast contribution of the social care workforce to our community. Showing that there is a migratory route into the UK for them would be a step towards achieving this. They have demonstrated that in low-paid jobs they provide good social care, and even die for us, as shown by Covid-19.
I had not indicated that I intend to divide the Committee today, but I look forward to the Minister’s response and I will reserve my judgment. All I can say is that the support for this amendment outside and from all sides is immense, and I hope the Minister will respond to that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of my Amendment 93. It is obvious that many of the amendments in this group are heading towards the same sort of thing, which is protection for people of all kinds as well as holding the Government to account for what they do. I support several of the amendments that have been spoken to, and I have been moved by some of the speeches from noble Lords.
My amendment is supported by over 50 organisations from all the devolved nations, including the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Macmillan Cancer Support, UNISON and the Association of Camphill Communities. Amendment 93 would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the effects of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on the health and social care sectors across the UK. This would be made after consulting the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department, service providers, those requiring health and social care service and others. One would hope that this would be automatic with any measure that a Government introduce as they really need to know whether it is working or not.
Proposed new subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament no later than one year after this Bill is passed. Proposed new subsection (8) would require a Minister of the Crown to make arrangements not later than six months after the report has been laid before Parliament, for the report to be debated and voted on in both Houses.
My amendment is necessary to safeguard the interests of the many people who rely on the contribution of EU citizens and non-EU citizens for the provision of health and social care across the four nations. This of course includes disabled people, children and young people, older people, unpaid carers and those with long-term health conditions. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am getting older and this might apply to me in a decade or two.
Prior to the UK leaving the EU, a number of studies had highlighted the significant adverse impact of Brexit on the health and social care sectors across the UK. These studies, and the initial information about the points-based immigration system provided in the Home Office’s policy paper, The UK’s Point-Based Immigration System: Policy Statement, suggest that the ending of freedom of movement and the introduction of a points-based immigration system will potentially have a major adverse impact on the health and social care sectors across the UK. I think every speech so far has highlighted that fact.
The proposed independent evaluation that would be introduced by Amendment 93 could play a key role in supporting the health and social care sectors across the UK, helping them to address a range of concern about the proposals. These include concerns that many health and social care workers from other European countries, and from non-European countries, would not meet the proposed income threshold under this system, and that the requirement to have a job offer is unnecessarily restrictive, and will create addition administrative burdens and cost for health and social care organisations trying to recruit staff from abroad. As we have heard, there is a lack of recognition of health and social care specific skills, experience and professional qualifications in the proposed points-based system. As a result, it does not recognise the skills and experience of the workers from across the EU, and from non-EU countries, to enrich health and social care support and services here. Nor does it value the sector and its growing importance as a result of demographic changes.
There is much wrong with the Government’s immigration policy, but health and social care will feel a particularly brutal impact. This independent analysis is required so that the Government can think properly about the needs of health and social care and develop policy accordingly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. I speak to Amendments 2 and 66, to which I have added my name, and I strongly support Amendment 82, tabled by my friend Lord Patel.
The current proposals will exclude a group of workers we desperately need: carers for those with physical and/or mental disabilities, especially, as my noble friend Lady Masham highlighted, those with spinal injuries and similar severe physical constraints, and those with severe impairments of mental capacity for a wide variety of reasons. Many of these people are at a high risk of Covid and some will have been on the official shielding list. They wish to remain in their own homes and need care around the clock. For them, a live-in carer is the best option, but the annual salary of such a carer will fall below the level to accrue points in the system. That workforce just does not exist here. UK residents are not coming forward to train as live-in domiciliary carers.
Those carers already here are fearful that they will not obtain leave to remain. UNISON is calling for key workers to remain here and be eligible for NHS care—that is, to be exempt from the “no recourse to public funds” criteria—during the pandemic. Around 17% of the social care workforce is made up of migrant workers, with 115,000 European nationals and 134,000 non-EU nationals.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 47, to which I added my name, but I also strongly support other amendments in the group, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Patel, who spoke powerfully in favour of making sure that we do not create barriers preventing health and social care staff coming to this country. I do not want to duplicate what others have said, so I will speak briefly about the difficulties we have in recruiting staff over here, which others have certainly emphasised.
The NHS employs half a million staff and has 100,000 vacancies reported by trusts, many of them among low-paid workers. This figure is projected to rise over the coming years, rather than diminish. Our problems will become pretty well impossible to manage unless we do something about it.
We want more support staff employed in primary care. This has been a policy goal for a long time and the NHS long-term plan continues to reflect this ambition, but the number of support staff working in community services has continued to fall, and I expect it to continue to do so. GP surgeries are desperate to appoint support staff but cannot do so. As others have said strongly, a similar picture applies to the social care sector, where we have 8,632 vacancies, according to the latest available data—surely unsustainable, as the number of elderly people needing care rises relentlessly, not to mention, as others have, the many people with disabilities and a range of problems.
The NHS Long Term Plan acknowledges that international recruitment will continue to be vital in the short to medium term if we are to deal with our staff shortages. This is being constrained, says a report by the Health Foundation, by immigration policies. Surely the Government need to pay attention to that, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point. Immigration policies are really causing problems for our health and social care services. Instead of imposing barriers to EEA and Swiss entrants, would it not be better for Ministers to concentrate on reducing barriers to well-qualified migrants with good English from the rest of the world? Amendment 47 is key, as are the other amendments in this group, if we are to improve our health and social care staffing or to avoid a serious drop in the quality and availability of these crucial services. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendments 47 and 66, but the intentions and sentiments already expressed so well by many noble Lords are ones that I fully endorse. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham, and other noble Lords for the excellent way in which they have explained the urgent need for measures in the Bill that specifically address the shortage of social care staff. I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I know cares about this issue as much as so many of us around the House, to take back to the department the strength of feeling across the House on this matter and address some of these issues before Report.
We are talking here about the biggest failure of social policy in modern times. The inadequacy of our social care provision is already well documented and well known, and the Government are already committed to addressing this issue as soon as possible. We cannot move forward and improve the quality of social care without staff. We cannot mechanise this. Care workers may be low paid, but that does not mean they are low skilled. They are essential to enabling increasing numbers of people to live decent lives. We are not talking about bringing in low-paid shelf stackers; we are talking about the emotional, physical and mental well-being of some of our most vulnerable citizens.
Given that the Government are the main funders of social care and have not yet funded adequately social care providers who employ staff who might generally earn above the £25,000 cut-off, that imposes on the Government a duty to ensure that our immigration policy does not deter those who might be willing to work for less than that figure—most of the people who work in social care already do so—from coming to this country when, as we have already heard, around one in five of our social care staff is already from overseas.
I know my noble friend responded to these concerns at Second Reading by saying that the Government hope that Britons will fill the shortfall, but hopes are not good enough. It takes time to try to find any UK nationals, train them in the right skills and raise the standards of pay. What are these elderly and disabled people supposed to do in the meantime? They need care. I therefore hope my noble friend might still consider the implications of these amendments, or at the very least agree to a transitional, temporary social care visa, perhaps for five or 10 years, that specifically enables social care providers and individuals who need to employ somebody to care for them in their own home to find those overseas workers who are willing to come here and fill the gaps we currently have, rather than having an immigration system that rules out being able to bring them in.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I very much agree with what she had to say. I am speaking primarily in support of Amendments 2 and 93, but I am supportive of all these amendments. I underline the importance of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Finlay, said about personal care.
When the Bill was postponed in the House of Commons, I thought that perhaps the Government were thinking again about the treatment of care workers in the points-based system in light of the Government’s and the country’s applause for them during the height of the pandemic. How naive I was; there was no rethink. Despite the crucial role they played and continue to play and the range of skills involved in their work—organisational, clinical and
“soft skills of empathy and patience”,
as the chief executive of the National Association of Care & Support Workers has explained—the Government, as has already been said, continue to confuse pay with skill and contribution.
Back in February, the Home Secretary herself conceded that
“care is not a low-skilled occupation”—
so why is it being treated as one now? To do so in the proposed points-based system is in effect discriminatory, as the equality impact assessment makes clear. It says:
“The Government is aware that prescribing a minimum … threshold could have differential impacts on individuals on the basis of their sex. Women may find it disproportionately more difficult to meet the threshold than men.”
Indeed, but there is no “could” or “may” about it. It will have a differential impact and women will find it disproportionately difficult because, of course, women make up the majority of care workers. Moreover, black and minority ethnic women are disproportionately represented in the care sector, and the equality impact assessment shows that BAME workers will also be adversely affected by the salary threshold.
In the Commons, the Immigration Minister said that
“our vision for the future of the care sector is about providing rewarding opportunities to UK-based workers, not basing it purely on immigration.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1250.]
Likewise, the Minister, at Second Reading, said that
“the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector.”—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2232.]
No one is suggesting that immigration provides the sole solution or that the future of care should depend purely on immigration but, to quote the Cavendish Coalition of 37 organisations in health and social care:
“For a sector where one in six are foreign nationals and which is struggling with 122,000 vacancies in England alone it would be unwise to believe that domestic recruitment will solve all social care’s immediate problems.”
It warns that we are
“swiftly heading towards an alarming destination with no obvious solution for the care sector.”
Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that those “rewarding opportunities” to which the Immigration Minister referred are to be provided when local authorities are already on their financial knees? As we have heard, funding has gone down in the care sector and the Government have done nothing about it over their 10-year period in office. Do the Government believe that the market will miraculously provide the solution in the absence of immigrant labour?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I associate myself in particular with Amendments 2 and 82 but, like other noble Lords, I support many of the amendments in this group in principle.
A constant theme since Second Reading is the need for key workers to continue to supply workforce in the UK, not least in the NHS and social care. It is a matter of fact that, quite apart from us potentially sending out the wrong message to those coming from countries other than the EEA and Switzerland—international care workers on whom we currently depend—many of our care home workers and care workers in general are sourced from Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and other EEA countries. I therefore suggest that this is a wake-up call to the potential immediate crisis that the social care sector could face on 1 January next year as a result of the Bill, if my reading of it is correct.
I always remember that during my time as an MP, when I used to ask the local jobcentre where the main vacancies were, the answer usually came back that the vacancies that were the most difficult to fill and therefore the longest on the register were those in the care sector. I hope this might provide an opportunity to really look again at the status of social care workers. They are the flip side to the NHS family. I remind the Committee of my interest in that I come from a medical family; my brother and father were GPs, and I currently work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. We can see the extent to which we were dependent on care homes taking often still quite poorly patients out of hospitals in the immediate pandemic circumstances of Covid-19.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will use her good offices to liaise with the relevant departments in this regard, particularly the Department of Health and Social Care, to look at valuing the skills and caring qualities of our social care workers and look to raise their salaries to more realistic levels.
I also ask my noble friend whether a compromise in this regard, particularly in view of the visa requirements, might be to look at whether it would be appropriate for the immigration system that will commence in the new year to have a two-year temporary work visa so as not to leave the country potentially short-staffed in this crunch period, as we deal with the knock-on effects of Covid and its economic consequences and as a result of our ending the transition period as we leave the European Union.
Furthermore, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am deeply concerned that many of the details are not in the Bill and that we are relying very heavily on secondary legislation and a points system, the details of which are not that transparent.
I conclude by lending my support to Amendment 2 in particular, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Adonis, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton. It requires the Government to commission an independent review of the social care sector, which would, I hope, cover many of the points that I raised today.
I also support Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which would introduce a duty to report on migratory options for health and social care workers who are ineligible for the skilled worker route. It is nonsensical to have such a constraint on a sector on which we are so heavily dependent.
I found the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, very moving. In my days as an MP, I visited a Leonard Cheshire home, where I encountered the tragic case of a young Olympic rower who had suffered a stroke and was incapacitated. If this Bill was passed, these two amendments—and all amendments in this group—could do so much good for people of all ages who are in care, particularly the vulnerable and the disabled in the community.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I want to return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his introductory remarks. The important amendment in this group is Amendment 2. All the others could be things that potentially fall out of a review, and so the key is to have that review and then look at the most appropriate way forward.
Many of the issues that have been spoken to in this debate are not new; we have been talking about social care for as long as I have been in the House. We could say many things about the current situation we find ourselves in, and some of the issues are fairly long-standing. One that I talk about a lot, but not many others do, is the fact that there are currently about a million people who are ageing and do not have children. Our health and social care service is predicated on the fact that you have children who will look out for your needs in any health or care setting. We will have 2 million people in that position by 2030. We have, therefore, an acute and growing need for paid social care. Also, at the moment, a number of our biggest care providers are owned by private equity firms, run at very low cost and margins—they are not about to stay in this business if they cannot do that, and to them, it is a business.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness talked about the need for the United Kingdom to stop colluding in an international trade in low-cost care. I can understand that argument but, at this moment, given where we are, we would be the first affluent western country to take itself out of what is, in effect, an international market in care. No other affluent western country—nor Australia, for that matter—has solved its care problem by suddenly turning off all access to people from other nations. It would be a very bold statement if we were to do that, but noble Lords have today pointed out the dangers of doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to argue that, at this moment, there is a case for a review. The Government, if they were not being so ideologically pure on the matter, would want to give themselves flexibility in addressing these issues as they arise. There is no need to do this: it is just government ideology. The Government could bring in a transitionary process, over about five years, that would enable people to get through a period of uncertainty. I therefore commend Amendment 2 to the Minister and ask her to look at some of the other amendments in this group.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will focus on Amendments 82 and 93, and particularly their implications for reviewing the need, or otherwise, to recruit nurses and doctors from overseas. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling them.
I suspect, however, that these amendments are based on the common fallacy that the NHS needs to recruit doctors and nurses overseas because supposedly not enough British people want to do these jobs. That is simply untrue. The latest year for which UCAS figures are available is 2019; I apologise to the House for giving out-of-date figures at Second Reading. The most recent figures show that 53,000 young British people applied to train as nurses last year, of whom 20,250 were turned away—that is 43% of applicants, or nearly half of those who applied. UCAS unfortunately does not produce figures on the same basis for those seeking to train as doctors, but it is clear that an even higher proportion of those who apply to medical school are turned away.
This is a double scandal. First, it means that tens of thousands of young Brits who aspire to serve their country as doctors or nurses are refused that chance and have to pursue less attractive options. Secondly, we have to recruit tens of thousands of doctors and nurses from abroad, mostly from countries that are far poorer, have fewer medical staff per head of population, and can ill afford to train people who then migrate to the United Kingdom.
This double scandal is compounded by the way this issue is excluded from the national debate. Why do we allow this situation to persist? We allow effectively unlimited numbers of students to study every subject from art history to zoology. The only subjects where places are numerically restricted are medicine, where they are formally restricted, and nursing, where they are de facto restricted.
I will pass over the political reasons why it may have seemed wise to advocates of mass immigration to invoke the needs of the NHS and nurses and doctors to sanctify their cause. The other reason is nakedly economic: we found it cheaper, in the short term, to employ people trained at the expense of foreign taxpayers, rather than pay to train our own citizens. At the same time, relying on nurses and other health workers from abroad, on whom many other noble Lords have focused, helps to keep wages low. What a paradox it is that many noble Lords who have spoken today and railed against the level of inequality in our country pursue a policy whose prime justification, as they have made clear today, is that it depresses the wages of the lowest-paid people in this country and keeps them below what economists call the domestic market clearing rate—the rate at which we could meet our needs from our own employees.
I was at first minded to support these amendments, but, on looking more closely, I note that one thing the reports that they call on the Government to produce do not cover is the scope for training more of those aspiring to become nurses and doctors in the UK, so that we can end the plundering of foreign health services. That is a very significant omission and shows that there is a blind spot in this discussion, which I hope we will not perpetuate in future debates.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
I had intended to withdraw from the debate, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I have to say that I agree very strongly with what he said. The debate so far has covered the case for a short-term arrangement to make sure that our failure to train in recent years can be made up for, but there is no justification in the medium term for taking doctors and nurses to look after people here from countries that need them far more than we do. That is our responsibility; it is time we trained our own and got a grip on it.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and the brief, excellent speech he made at the beginning of this debate. I also want to reinforce points that have been made by the majority of your Lordships, with the exceptions of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green. Although I do not dispute for a minute that both noble Lords have a point, they have highlighted what I hope to put across this evening, which is the complete contradictions that exist in this debate.
I shall start by picking up those points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green. I am presuming that, when we reach Report, they will be moving amendments that will remove the so-called health and social care route announced in July, because under that route doctors and nurses could be recruited from across the world to fill vacancies at that level.
One of the contradictions that I want to highlight relates to young people. Young people who cannot find a job anywhere else due to the aftermath of Covid-19—the 20% drop in GDP and the knock-on effect on unemployment—might decide to go into social care. Most young people I speak to want a career and to be able to progress, and there is progression in both residential and social care. However, as things stand with the proposals by the Government, the area from which we would allow people to be brought in from overseas would be at that higher level, whereas at the lower level the vacancies that have been mentioned—122,000 in England alone—would not be fillable from outside the country. I do not know whether the Government believe that, given the crisis in unemployment that is about to accelerate, people will just take up those vacancies even if they are not emotionally and physically suitable to take up caring duties. As has been made clear in this debate, you have to be a particular type of person to take up some of the less attractive duties of caring for someone who is severely disabled or frail and has dementia.
The contradictions, also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, abound. We all want to see improved wages in this sector. That would not only reward people morally for what they do but help fill vacancies. But the danger of simply putting money into the sector, given the level of private equity ownership, might well be that it gets creamed off, rather than helping to fill vacancies. Or, they will simply close the homes if the money is not provided, which will cause an even bigger problem—as part of the contradictions, we would end up with older, frailer and more severely disabled people in hospital settings, which are more expensive but would allow for staffing to be brought in from outside this country. We saw that in March and April, when people who should have been in different settings in the first place were cascaded out into the residential sector unchecked for Covid-19 and ill-prepared in terms of PPE to be able to deal with it. The consequences, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, are obvious for all of us to see.
The biggest contradiction of all—and I put this to the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green—is that, on the centre-left in politics, people are generally suspicious of markets and, on the right, people generally embrace markets. But as I said on Second Reading, in the case of the labour market, the situation is reversed, and those who believe vehemently in markets are against a labour market and against being able to draw in from across the world those who have something to offer the area we are talking about this evening.
We need to sort out the contradictions. That includes the issue of austerity, which led to a bigger downturn in funding for local government services and those funded by local government than any other public service area in the country, with the result that local government has been struggling both with its own direct health provision and with funding in the market and the ability to sustain services.
I have one question—I have learned over the Covid-19 period that you do not get an answer from the Minister unless you ask them a question. My question is simple, and the Minister might be able to answer it tonight: we know what the vacancy level is, but do we have an up-to-date picture of the turnover level in the social care sector? The turnover gives you an idea of how long people can stand working in this challenging but often rewarding setting. What steps might have to be taken if the Government’s hope is that the downward pressure on job availability will help fill, in the short term, the vacancies that we have talked about?
At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the care of human beings. We are not talking about markets or political or economic theory; we are talking about the reality of caring for people in their own homes and stopping them, therefore, having to move into hospital, residential care or residential settings that are dealing with people at very difficult times of their lives. In the end, we have to care enough to get it right.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the powerful opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is very experienced in this field, and to the speeches that have followed.
Who can argue about the need for a properly skilled, staffed, trained social care workforce? “Skilled and settled”, I think, was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. That is why the issues in subsections (3)(a), (3)(b), (3)(c) and (3)(d) in the noble Lord’s proposed new clause seem entirely appropriate questions to ask. But when they are tied back into an immigration Bill, I begin to get nervous. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about contradictions, and I listened carefully to what he said, but the fact is that the issues in subsections (3)(a) to (d) are issues for the sector not linked directly to the immigration matter we are discussing this evening.
I recognise I am probably swimming against the tide, but it is important to realise that workplace psychologists will tell you that you go to work for three reasons. First, you go for the money, and let us not be precious about that. Secondly, and equally importantly, you go for what they call self-actualisation —to improve and increase your life skills, work with decent people, have career progression, have a good performance that is noted and rewarded and, hopefully, operate in an atmosphere of good team spirit. Those are the internal desires most people have in going to work.
The third area is external reputation. When you mention where you work, what do people say in the saloon bar of The Dog and Duck or around the table at a dinner party?
It is worth taking those three yardsticks and applying them to the social care sector. First, there is the money. There is no getting around it: £8.70 an hour is clearly not good enough when compared with £9 for stacking shelves in a supermarket. However, money is not the only motivator here, and when we turn to self-actualisation —the second of the criteria that I mentioned—the situation is quite serious. I have had the privilege of serving on the boards of many companies in my career. When I join one, I often say, “Tell me about your staff turnover.” No staff turnover is not an attractive thing; very often it means that the company has got a bit complacent and is not at the cutting edge, and that the service is not as good as it could be. You want some staff turnover—5%, 10%, that sort of level—to provide the dynamic but, if it rises above that level, it is operationally destructive, distracting and expensive, and the quality of the service starts to fall away.
I understand that in 2018-19 there was a 32.2% turnover in directly employed staff in the sector. Worse, among care workers the turnover was 39.5%. Further evidence of a lack of considered career progression is that half the workforce—excluding registered professionals —have no relevant social care qualifications, which seems to me a question not of money but of managerial grip and organisation, and of making the sector better managed.
Lastly, on the external reputation, one of the great advantages and developments of the pandemic is that people have begun to see how useful, worthwhile and attractive social care can be. People have begun to think about it. Long may that continue but, historically, we all must accept that its reputation has not been that good.
This is a system under acute stress, as many noble Lords have said. The danger of amendments such as these is that they will result in new arrivals, and that immigration will be used as a crutch to maintain what is close to being a broken system. I cannot believe that this is the right approach. More importantly, if the sector believes that it has a “get out of jail free” card, to use the inference that the Minister made when winding up at Second Reading, then there is no pressure on the sector to make any improvements or changes to how the businesses are run or operated, nor indeed is there any pressure on the Government to do likewise. We must find ways to improve the operational performance and the financial performance.
I have two final points. First, on the issue of morality, referred to by my noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, recruitment in this area is a zero-sum game. What we have, other people lose. Maybe one could say that within the EU there is sufficient prosperity for us not to worry about it, but the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned the wider recruitment. This is a very serious issue. We must look ourselves in the mirror and decide whether it is right and fair for us to be recruiting doctors, nurses and care workers from less- developed countries. It may be serious within the EU, but it certainly is serious around the world.
I will give just one example. When the Ebola virus struck Sierra Leone, there were 136 doctors there, one for every 45,000 people; in this country, the equivalent figure is one for every 300 people. At that time, there were 27 Sierra Leone doctors working in the NHS. If we had not employed those people, we could have given a 20% boost to Sierra Leone’s health facilities. It is not the answer but when we set out our stall for the future we must consider our attitude towards the less developed world, and whether we will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, take ourselves out of the international market for health and social care workers.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that many fear the impact that a sharp and purely tailored approach to ending free movement on growth could have in certain important economic sectors, especially within Northern Ireland. The move to reduce the £30,000 salary threshold to £25,600 for skilled migrants coming to the UK is welcome. However, it is not sustainable in Northern Ireland because quite a number of jobs, especially in the care sector, pay less than £25,600. The requirements of the sector have always been different from most of the rest of the economy, but I address my remarks mainly to Amendments 2, 82 and 93, and the need for workers in the health and care sector.
The pandemic has shown the enormous contribution of overseas workers to our health and social care system. Indeed, they have put their lives at risk to keep us safe. Over these last months the care sector has been under extreme pressure, and clearly any major changes will have serious consequences. Unless we have a breakthrough with a vaccine, care homes and that sector of our health provision will still be battling Covid-19. A large percentage of our doctors in the NHS are from overseas, yet there are thousands of posts vacant across the medical profession. There are serious staff recruitment and retention problems within health and social care, even with freedom of movement and flexibility of opportunity. Added to this is an ageing population with increasingly complex care needs. The Government have ambitious plans to fill staff vacancies, which noble Lords have spoken about, but it will take a concerted effort and a very considerable period of time to train doctors and nurses—even if they are recruited tomorrow—and to provide thousands of professional care home staff for our various facilities across the United Kingdom.
In my opinion, this is a mammoth task. It is not realistic to pretend that we can address the vacancy shortage within a short period. To suggest that those who have lost their employment elsewhere would adequately fill these vacancies is also unacceptable, as we are speaking about a caring profession; vulnerable people who need assistance need loving, professionally skilled attention. I fear that deterring the recruitment from overseas of care assistants and other junior care workers who already have skills will lead to a serious decline in the quality and availability of care for the most vulnerable in society.
We also need an independent evaluation of the impact of the Bill on the health and social care sector across the United Kingdom. The appointment of a person independent of government should be done following consultation between the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations. If what is being done under the Bill is right and professionally competent, there is nothing to fear from such a comprehensive independent evaluation. This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament no later than one year after the Bill is passed, and that no later than six months after the report is laid it will be debated and voted on in the Commons and Lords. The effects of these changes on disabled people, older citizens, children and young people and those with long-term health conditions—in other words, those who rely on the service provided by health and social care to make life bearable—could be profound. Therefore, we had best be sure that we get it right.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak particularly to Amendments 2, 47 and 57. I strongly agree with the excellent opening speech on this group by my noble friend Lord Hunt and with many other speeches, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Lister. This Bill illustrates that the pandemic has revealed fundamental flaws in the present United Kingdom non-EU immigration system and the Government’s post-Brexit plans for immigration. In an economy which previously had record levels of employment, and despite the joblessness effects of Covid on the labour market, their proposed points-based system could produce damaging labour shortages in many sectors, including the NHS, social care, which has been spoken about authoritatively in this debate, farming, food processing and construction.
None of this should come as a surprise, as the 2016 referendum campaign was based on rhetoric falsely linking the free movement of EU workers with the legacies of Tory austerity: housing shortages, depressed wages and huge cuts in public services, especially social care. The promise to take back control of borders may have appealed to nationalistic jingoism, but it was never rooted in the reality of modern Britain, where EU and non-EU migrants of all skills levels and income brackets keep the economic and social wheels turning. EU and other migrant workers were always, in fact, net contributors, through tax and national insurance, to the National Health Service, social care and other public services. Despite the Government’s intention to equate low pay with low skills and low value, the pandemic has abruptly brought migrants’ significant front-line roles as key workers in keeping the country afloat to the attention of the public, among whom it is now widely recognised, whereas perhaps it was not in 2016. As the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has stated, the Bill
“will deny our communities the care and professionalism contributed by migrants in these areas, to our own detriment.”
The Bill does not set out in detail what the future points-based UK system will look like. These changes will be covered in unamendable Immigration Rules. The Bill gives the Government Henry VIII powers to modify primary or secondary legislation as appropriate. Despite the Government’s claims that these powers are usual, they will diminish the role of Parliament in an area of policy where many, including the Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 2019 46th report, have concluded that greater scrutiny is already required.
In the social care sector, on which millions of extremely vulnerable British people depend—many of them our relatives, in care homes and in their own homes—the vast majority of social care roles do not meet the planned immigration system’s salary threshold of £25,600. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, who spoke immediately before me, emphasised that point in relation to Northern Ireland. Using data collected before—I stress, before—the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Skills for Care estimated the number of vacancies in the sector at 133,000. It also estimated that 5% of the 1.65 million workforce, or more than 80,000 staff, are at risk of losing their employment rights at the end of the transition period, in a sector where nearly half of employers are already struggling to fill existing vacancies because of low pay, anti-social hours and the demanding nature of care work.
The Government, in their wisdom, have decided that front-line social care staff will be excluded from their fast-track health and care visa, with the Home Secretary stating that this will encourage employers to invest in workers from the UK. Who is going to pay for this? Will it be people receiving care, cash-strapped local authorities, whose budgets have been massively cut, or private-sector care providers, many of whom are teetering on the brink of financial collapse? Parliament’s library briefing confirms that
“a wide range of organisations are concerned that short-term funding pressures remain. In 2018, the Local Government Association estimated that adult social care services faced a £1.5 billion funding gap by 2019/20 and £3.5 billion gap by 2024/25.”
While the points-based system is a fundamental change, other aspects of the non-EU immigration system such as enforcement, the right to bring dependants, settlement criteria, asylum, no access to public funds and more will remain unchanged when EU citizens without settled status become subject to them in 2021—next year. The pandemic has demonstrated that because of these policies, many such migrants are at significant risk of exposure to the virus, fear accessing healthcare, lack access to safe housing and are unable to stop working or to self-isolate because they are on poverty wages. This is not only detrimental to the health of migrant communities; the health of the wider public is also put at risk.
The Bill is a missed opportunity to deal with many more important questions, on which I support contributions and amendments from noble colleagues, including measures to combat modern slavery and indefinite detention, and to address family reunion for refugees and safe routes for unaccompanied children. These unresolved issues mean that the existing UK immigration regime for non-EU immigration is already a stain on our national reputation. Its extension to EU citizens from 2021 is a matter of deep regret, creating a new Brexit generation alongside the Windrush generation.
All British citizens living in the EU want to be reassured that we will uphold the treaty rights of EU citizens in the UK, the better to insist that they are upheld for our citizens in the EU. The Bill fails to provide that reassurance. If the Government want to retain the respect of our former friends and partners, they should listen to the concerns expressed by EU ambassadors and others and accept amendments which will guarantee the rights of the Brexit generation of European Union citizens, including vital social care workers, who have legally made their lives in our country, by writing them into this primary legislation.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we have heard from across the Committee the concern about this crisis in social care. Many noble Lords have considerable expertise on this topic and I am grateful to them for sharing their knowledge.
History will record the failure to deal with the fragile state of the provision and funding of social care as one of the major failures in domestic policy, and one has to say that particularly of the last 10 years of Conservative and Conservative-led government. I wish that as much energy had been applied to this subject as to Brexit. It shows a peculiar set of priorities.
I do not know whether the Government are being ideologically pure, to use the term employed by my noble friend Lady Barker. I certainly think that they are being obdurate and, I am afraid, unintelligent in not responding to the enormous problems in social care. The idea that in a short space of time we are going to find loads of people in the United Kingdom who want to work in this sector when they have never previously shown any interest in, inclination towards or aptitude for such work is pie in the sky. We learn that there are 120,000—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to an estimate of 133,000—vacancies in the social care sector. When a quarter of a million social care workers—that is, 20% of the workforce—are EU or non-EU nationals, the ending of free movement under this Bill will lead to even greater shortages of staff.
I agree that it is wrong to exclude care workers from the health and care visa route, since only maybe senior care workers will be included under the salary level criterion. My understanding is that Canada and New Zealand have sector-specific visa routes. Since they are flavour of the month, why don’t we follow countries like them?
I was very moved by the tragic account from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of the suicide of quite a young man through the fear of a lack of care. I experienced this a little when my late husband, four years before he died, had to have a leg amputated due to sepsis. He benefited from carer support, as well as, I hope, from my support. I can absolutely relate to the emotions—the fear and anxiety—of people, whether the elderly or those with a range of disabilities, who do not know whether they will be able to get care either in a care home or in their own home.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, low skilled and low paid does not equal low value. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to the right caring personality being one of the necessary skills, but somehow that seems to be disregarded as though it comes with the territory, not least with women. Women are expected to be natural carers; well, we are not necessarily.
My noble friend Lady Barker referred to an acute and growing need for paid social care as the number of people without children grows to, I think she said, 2 million in 2030. I am one of those guilty parties—I have failed to grow the population—and my noble friend makes a very good point. Many families are not necessarily in a position anyway to provide care within the family, but she makes a very good point about a factor that increases the necessity.
Various amendments call for a review. Some of them could talk about health and social care but the emphasis in this debate, just like Amendment 2, which was very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has rightly been concentrated on the social care sector, which is where we are facing a crisis. One of the factors in that crisis is going to be the lack of an adequate workforce, and quite honestly it is astonishing if the Government do not respond to that. I hope the Minister can give us some hope of progress when she replies to the debate.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on his powerful speech opening this debate. I wish to speak in particular to Amendment 57 in this group, to which my name is attached, although I agree with the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords who have spoken to other amendments in this group. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, advised the Minister to reject my amendment before I have even spoken to it, though I fear that my speech will probably only reinforce his view of his advice to his noble friend.
The amendment would make provision for the Secretary of State to provide a dedicated social care visa for EEA and Swiss nationals who had the right to free movement and have a job offer to work in the social care sector, and to their dependents. They would not be subject to the NHS surcharge or the immigration skills charge and the visa route would be available for three years from the end of the transition period, with the option to extend for further years if necessary.
The thinking behind the amendment is that the Government’s intention to suddenly shut the entry door at the end of the transition period in a few months’ time on the overwhelming majority of future overseas social care workers under the criteria laid down in the new points-based immigration system, and the exclusion of care workers from the qualifying list for the health and care visa, will have serious and immediate adverse consequences for our already stretched social care provision in the UK. The amendment would remove the suddenness associated with this policy change through the social care visa available for three years with an option to extend, and would give the social care sector a realistic chance of being able to adjust to the loss of a significant source of labour.
A Commons Home Office Minister said in July said that the reason why care workers had been excluded from the qualifying list for the health and care visa was that the Government had a “vision” for the social care sector that it should no longer
“carry on looking abroad to recruit at or near the minimum wage”,
and that the Government’s priority was that in future care sector jobs would be
“valued, rewarded and trained for, and that immigration should not be an alternative.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; cols. 1249-50.]
If that means significantly better rates of pay and an associated increased degree of widely accepted and acknowledged professionalism in the underpaid and undervalued social care sector, that is to be welcomed—a widely accepted and acknowledged professionalism that does not leave care homes and care workers at the back of the queue when it comes to personal protective equipment and does not regard the care sector as so forgotten and unimportant as to send vulnerable people from hospital into care homes who have not been tested for Covid-19.
The fundamental change needed is far from the current position and cannot be achieved in the space of the next few months, when the transition period ends, without potentially serious adverse consequences for those who are vulnerable and dependent on care provision either at home or in a home. It requires a change of culture and attitude both towards and within the sector, a change that the Government have to accept is their responsibility to lead. That will take time, as the Government implicitly accepted when they said in July that with the vast majority of social care staff employed in the fragmented private sector, their
“ability to influence pay rates there”
is limited.
Some 17% to 20% of the social care workforce are migrant workers, with 115,000 EEA nationals and 134,000 non-EEA nationals. Vacancy rates in the care sector now stand at 6.5% in England and 5.5% in Scotland. Since there are already 100,000-plus vacancies in England’s care sector alone and the current flow of people from abroad to fill low-paid care sector jobs is about to dry up, the Government cannot possibly have been able to satisfy themselves that not only will UK-based workers immediately appear to fill that gap but they will be there in sufficient numbers—with the right training, aptitude and caring qualities for social care work—to lower the vacancy levels in the sector as well.
One assumes in making that statement that the Government do not believe that anyone can successfully do this kind of work and that anyone available should be recruited. We are told that the Government have an “oven-ready plan” to address the issue of funding the increasingly expensive social care sector. Unfortunately, the person claiming to have this plan for more than 12 months now has been unable to figure out how to turn the oven on.
If higher pay rates did suddenly materialise in the social care sector in a few months’ time, which would apparently solve the labour shortages—as the Government seem to assume will happen as a result of the points-based immigration system and the drying up of non-British labour—there will presumably be a potentially significant increase in the cost of providing social care. What do the Government think that increase in cost will be since it is only a few months ahead of us in a sector with a 30%-plus annual staff turnover rate, a high vacancy rate and a major source of labour about to end? Will it be the elderly, vulnerable care-home residents and people receiving care at home—the self-funders—who will have to find yet more money? Will it be the already cash-strapped local authorities? Will it be the providers of care provision or will it be the Government themselves financing the cost of a much better paid, more highly valued, more highly trained and increasingly professional social care workforce? I hope that the Government will provide an answer to this point in their reply.
The care sector was in crisis before Covid-19. Local authority spending on adult social care in England has fallen, I think, by some 7% per person in the past decade, thanks to austerity and cuts in grants from central government. Councils have had to tighten eligibility thresholds as cost, rather than need, has become the dominant factor in decision-making. One inevitable result is that some 1.5 million elderly and disabled people have unmet care needs and care workers are often expected to deliver home care within a 15-minute visit or less.
The work is usually low paid and seriously undervalued. However, high-quality care is not low skilled and the Government’s apparent policy that the rising unemployment on which they are banking will solve problems of staff shortages is misguided and potentially dangerous. What is needed is a better funded and resourced care sector with a new focus on training and continuing professional development. We need a cultural change in how we view social care and the value we place on those who work in the sector, including the way in which the immigration system regards social care workers—a change that recognises that there is direct competition from the NHS for many care staff, an NHS that offers higher pay levels and a career structure. With nearly one-fifth of the adult social care workforce being from overseas, in a sector with already high levels of vacancies and turnover rates it is unrealistic to believe that the effect of shutting the door to future care sector staff being recruited in any numbers from overseas can be overcome in rapid time by finding and training appropriate personnel with an aptitude for care sector work from within the ranks of British citizens, both already employed and unemployed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, says that we are a contradictory lot and I do not disagree with that, but what we are all consistent on is that this is a matter that, through Covid, we have seen as incredibly important. We need people with these skills; they are valued and their careers can progress in this sector. He raised a very pertinent point around the turnover. I think you can tell the state of a sector or indeed a business by its turnover. Turnover is high; it is estimated to be around 31%. That is a high turnover in anyone’s book. I will confirm that figure because it is one that I have on the top of my head but my officials might disagree with it. If it is any different, I will confirm that in writing.
The amendments cover a range of issues, all of which relate to health and social care. They can be broadly split into three themes: the need to review the effects of the new immigration system on the health and care sectors, dedicated visa routes for health and social care workers, and immigration routes for those who do not meet requirements under the future skilled workers route. I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments because they give us an opportunity to discuss a very important issue. It might be worth reflecting that there is nothing more important than how we, as a society, look after the most vulnerable people, be they young or old.
I will say another general thing about the health and social care sector, not as a Home Office Minister or even a Member of your Lordships’ House but as someone who formerly led one of England’s major metropolitan councils—which, as with all local authorities, was a significant user of care services, which consumed a substantial portion of the council’s budget. I became leader in 2004; it was an issue then and it is even more so now. I assure noble Lords that the Government very much appreciate the contribution of the social care sector, and its value to this country has never been better demonstrated than during the Covid crisis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. The Government are working alongside the sector to ensure that the workforce has the right number of people to meet increasing demands with the right skills, knowledge and behaviours to deliver quality, compassionate care.
I will respond to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The Department of Health and Social Care has recently launched a new national recruitment campaign, called “Every Day is Different”, to run across broadcast, digital and social media. The campaign highlights the vital role that the social care workforce is playing right now during this pandemic along with the longer-term opportunities of working in care.
The Government have commissioned Skills for Care to scale up capacity for digital induction training, provided free of charge under the DHSC’s workforce development fund. This training is available for redeployees, new starters, existing staff and volunteers through 12 of Skills for Care’s endorsed training providers.
Finally, of course, I must mention—and I am sure noble Lords have heard me saying this before—that the Government are also providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adults and children’s social care in 2021. This is a significant funding uplift.
On the amendments, I will start by addressing Amendment 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 93 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which are similar in intent. Both would require an independent review of the effect of our new points-based immigration system on the care sector. I very much agree that it is essential that policies are kept under review, particularly when the Government are introducing a new, points-based immigration system from January. Independent scrutiny and review are a good thing, but I am not sure that we need to legislate to provide a whole new mechanism.
We are very fortunate in already having the Migration Advisory Committee, a body that is widely recognised for its expertise and impartiality. It is testimony to the MAC’s standing that it has operated under a Labour Government, a coalition Government and Conservative Governments. In each instance it has been valued for the quality of its advice, and its recommendations have been accepted. Noble Lords should be in no doubt about the close interest that the MAC takes in the health and social care sectors. To put it into context, social care featured prominently in the MAC’s report from January of this year on salary thresholds and the points-based immigration system, just as it did in its report from last year on the shortage occupation lists, where there was a dedicated section on the sector, and in its 2018 report on EEA migration. I can assure noble Lords that the MAC will continue to look at these issues, particularly as the effects of the new immigration system start to be felt.
I also remind noble Lords that the Government has expanded the MAC’s remit. It is no longer constrained to reacting only in response to specific commissions from the Government; it now has licence to consider, and comment on, any aspect of immigration policy. To that end, we have asked it to start producing annual reports that not only cover issues such as its budget or staffing but provide a commentary on the operation of the immigration system. The MAC has accepted this challenge with customary gusto, and I understand we can look forward to the first such annual report later this year.
Therefore, while I totally understand the sentiment behind Amendments 2 and 93, they are not necessary. We already have a world-class, independent body to review the operation of our immigration system. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 47 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and Amendment 66 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, Lady Finlay and Lady Thomas. I join noble Lords in having been profoundly moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. These amendments seek to introduce a dedicated route for health and care workers to come to the UK. I do not think that any of us would disagree about the value of the work that migrants and all staff working in the health and care sector do, and I recognise that these amendments were tabled to highlight and enhance this vital sector. That is obviously of great importance to those individuals with severe disabilities and care needs, who will rely even more on the support of health and care workers.
That is why I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Government launched the health and care visa on 4 August. The visa is available to health and care workers, and their families, from all parts of the world, not just EEA and Swiss nationals. Applicants pay a visa fee of £232 for a visa lasting less than three years, and £464 for a visa lasting more than three years. Applicants, and their families, are also exempt from having to pay the immigration health surcharge. Finally, most applicants for the health and care visa can expect a decision within just three weeks of enrolling their biometrics.
That leaves two further points for discussion. First, if inserted into the Bill, these amendments would require the Government to establish a scheme to admit care workers. I am not sure that that would be a wise way to proceed. The decision not to offer a general immigration route for those who do not meet the skills and salary thresholds is not one the Government have taken lightly. We have done so on the advice of the MAC which, as outlined earlier, are the Government’s independent advisers on migration issues. We also need to respect the wishes of the people of the UK, as expressed in the referendum vote four years ago.
The MAC has been very clear that the solutions to the challenges which the care sector faces do not lie in migration. My noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, made this point, as, largely, did my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the evidence which the chair of the MAC, Professor Brian Bell, gave to the committee in the other place. When asked about a visa route for care workers, he said:
“If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, ‘Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage’, first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with and, secondly, it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers. You are saying that you are going to keep on allowing their wages to be held down by allowing employers to bring in workers at the minimum wage, whereas we want to see wages rising in that sector.”
That is a telling point. It would be a very odd position for this Government and for noble Lords to take if we were to conclude that the best way to reward those working in the care sector—the vast majority of whom are British—for their selfless and unstinting actions over the past few months was to institute a visa regime which, as the MAC chair has indicated, has the effect of depressing their wages.
Amendment 57 from the Official Opposition suggests putting in place a scheme for three years to tide the sector over and allow for some adjustment. Again, it is worth reflecting on the wise words of the chair of the MAC—this time when he appeared before the Home Affairs Committee in June. On the issue of some sort of temporary or transitional scheme for those working in social care, Professor Bell said:
“The risk is that you say that there needs to be a temporary arrangement for social care to make sure it can still access workers at usually minimum-wage wages from the rest of the world. That often then becomes a permanent solution”.
Indeed, I note that Amendment 57 explicitly contains a provision to allow it to be extended beyond its three years.
In the very next question, the chair of the Home Affairs Committee asked Professor Bell whether there would be a transitional scheme for social care workers, something my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady McIntosh of Pickering talked about. He explicitly said that he did not advise that course of action. He went on to say:
“If unemployment rises very substantially in the next few months, of which there is certainly a risk when the furlough scheme unwinds, there will be a large supply of workers in the UK looking for work. If social care is ever to succeed in attracting workers, that is a pool of workers that they should be able to attract. If they can’t, I go back to my point that there is something fundamentally wrong here and it is nothing to do with immigration.”
These amendments seek to exempt health and care sector employers from paying the immigration skills charge. However, we consider it is right that the immigration skills charge continues to apply. In its September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the MAC supported continued application of the immigration skills charge, without exceptions for particular sectors, alongside salary thresholds, as a way to protect against employers using migrants to undercut the domestic workforce, as my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, said.
The Government stand by this requirement, given our desire for immigration to be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s resident workforce. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made the point very strongly about the sector taking responsibility here; my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, also made these points. This has only become more important due to the uncertainty that many UK resident workers will face as a result of the current pandemic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have given their support to my and other noble Lords’ amendments.
The Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green, say we should not be using migrant labour to undercut our own workforce. Let me make it clear: I absolutely agree. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the current turnover of care staff is appalling and cannot possibly be defended. But, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said in his marvellous winding-up speech, you will not solve the care sector’s problems by suddenly snapping off its ability to recruit staff from abroad from the end of the year. All you will do is tip it into an even bigger crisis than it is in. This is complete madness. We know what is going to happen; towards the end of the year, or at the beginning of the new year, there will be a total panic in the Government and they will reverse the decision. They have had practice at reversing decisions in the last few months, have they not?
On those pressures, noble Lords who oppose what I am saying seem to think it is the care sector’s fault. This is a government-controlled sector. The Government are the main funder and regulator; they set the whole context in which the sector operates. They have had countless reviews but will not face up to coming forward with a costed solution. We all know that the Green Paper, if it eventually comes, will be about funding the sector 20 to 30 years in the future. It will not deal with the issues as they now are.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says that, if you go for my noble friend’s amendment, which I commend, a transitional arrangement will become permanent. That is the point: it is down to the Government to make sure that it is not permanent. The beauty of my noble friend’s amendment is that it sets the challenge to Government. Let us go for a transitional arrangement but, if the Government want it to end, they have to come forward with effective proposals to reform and sort out the care sector, once and for all.
I do not see the Migration Advisory Committee in the same way that the noble Baroness does. She quoted the chair of that committee presumably proclaiming the rise in unemployment that he foresees as the solution to the care sector problem. I have been trying to ponder the Government’s Brexit strategy. Clearly they are prepared to let the automotive and aerospace industries go to the wall and, presumably, they are happy about that, because the care sector’s problems will be solved as a result of the decimation of people working in those sectors. You could not make it up. This is the worst Government there has been in my lifetime. From issue to issue, they clamber around with some ideological nonsense about what the British people were supposed to have voted for in the referendum, and we end up in this dire situation. Having said that, it has been a great debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. 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 the debate.
Schedule 1: Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.
Amendment 7
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“( ) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to any other EU-derived rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures does not include a reference to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising under the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive (2011/36).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to confirm the status of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive under EU retained law and how it might be affected as a result of Schedule 1, paragraph 6.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 7 because, as I raised at Second Reading, there is a great deal of concern about the situation that will be faced by victims of modern slavery after the Brexit transition period concludes at the end of December. Other noble Lords raised this concern at Second Reading, including the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Randall, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who has kindly added her name to my amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who was gracious enough to support the Private Member’s Bill in my name, to which I shall return later.
The Minister will know that I firmly support the Government’s aim of bringing immigration policy solely within the control of the UK Government and that leaving the EU should also mean that the UK is not bound by EU law, other than that which we have chosen to incorporate into domestic law. However, I was and remain a strong advocate for the content of the EU anti-trafficking directive which the Government agreed to adopt in 2011. Having left the EU, exercising our sovereignty does not compel us to make fewer provisions for victims of trafficking than those available under the directive. Indeed, I suggest that we should use this freedom to ensure that we have the very best provisions for victims of human slavery.
Since the Government opted into the directive, we have passed the excellent Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, that does not contain any provisions relating to immigration status or access to support or benefits for victims, something which my Private Member’s Bill, the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill currently before the House, seeks to rectify.
The directive has filled this gap to a degree, since the direct effect of the EU directive in practice made it part of domestic law, unlike the statutory guidance and the Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention. The statutory guidance is valuable but does not have the force of law and can easily be changed; the convention creates obligations for the Government, but these are not rights which would take precedence over other UK law such as, for example, immigration law.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I detail some background to my amendment. In a nutshell, there is uncertainty about whether aspects of the directive remain part of what is known as EU retained law. If parts of the directive are retained EU law, it is also uncertain whether they could then be disapplied by this Bill under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, because they conflict with immigration policy
On the first uncertainty—namely, whether rights under the anti-trafficking directive remain recognised and available in domestic law—the answer depends on whether rights under the directive fall within the relevant definitions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The key definition is set out in Section 4(2)(b) of the 2018 Act, which requires that the rights in question are
“of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom”.
Given that definition, part of the problem associated with trying to understand whether rights will obtain after the end of this year is because, to my knowledge, the phrase “of a kind” has yet to be interpreted by the courts. The Explanatory Notes to the 2018 Act offer some assistance, indicating that where a UK or EU court has recognised rights arising under directly effective provisions of directives, these will remain in law, meaning that they
“could be relied upon by other individuals who are not parties to that case”.
What is less clear, however, is the status of other rights in the same directive that may meet the test for having direct effect but have not yet come before the court. Will these be “‘of a kind” with those other rights and be available in domestic law? Or, as the Explanatory Notes—but not the legislation itself—seem to imply, will those rights no longer be available simply because they will not yet have been tested in court?
The second area of confusion relates to those rights that do fall within the withdrawal Act definition and have been retained in domestic law. The issue here is the broad nature of the terms used in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to this Bill, which could see those retained rights being disapplied because they conflict with immigration policy. Since the majority of the victims of modern slavery in the UK are not British nationals, there is necessarily an intersection between immigration policy and the rights relating to the support and other treatment of those victims. It is the combination of these two uncertainties that compounds the risk for victims of trafficking.
Experts who support victims of modern slavery, including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association —the ILPA—have said that, in the light of the above concerns, some of the protections which may be lost include the
“protection against removal of a victim of trafficking because they never received sufficient support and assistance under Article 11, or because an investigation was never conducted, or the protection against removal during their reflection and recovery period.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has withdrawn, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow my noble friend Lord McColl, who has been such a doughty campaigner on this issue. I would like to say at the outset that I would be a strong supporter of his Private Member’s Bill. I should start by declaring that I am a vice-chairman of trustees of the Human Trafficking Foundation, a position I share with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who with her legal background is more able to discuss these matters.
I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord McColl that the anti-trafficking directive from the EU will not necessarily be implemented into domestic law; he has explained clearly the exact position. I would like to say this. There has always been a conflict between the victims of modern slavery and the people who find them, who are often the same officers who check on illegal immigration. Many of the victims, certainly those not from the EU, could well be illegal immigrants. When they were EU citizens who had free movement, even if they were brought here under duress or false pretences they would not have been illegal immigrants. What will happen is that there will probably be more of an impetus to remove people, even though they are victims. That is not what the Government intend, and I am sure that the Minister will say so, but it might well be the result. In theory, the fact that we are supposed to be taking control of our borders might well mean that we should be in a position to stop more people coming in who are actually victims, and particularly to try to stop the evil purveyors—the traffickers themselves.
I am proud that when the Modern Slavery Act was brought in, I was still in the other place and able to be part of that. However, it is light on victim support. While it is acknowledged that it is world-beating in many respects, its provisions on victim support are not sufficient. There is therefore, as my noble friend Lord McColl has said, a real opportunity for this country to prove once again that we take the terrible crime of modern slavery extremely seriously and to be the world leader in how we deal with its victims.
I want also to commend to my noble friend on the Front Bench the review recently instigated by the Government. I am not sure, but I think that we are still waiting for a response to some of the points raised in the review by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the soon to be ennobled Frank Field —I do not know whether technically he is yet a Member of the House—and Maria Miller, an esteemed Member of the other place. While this is a probing amendment, we want assurances. This is a fantastic opportunity to do the right thing and to do it very well.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I was one of those who raised concerns about paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 at Second Reading. As I stated then, an important body of EU-derived rights stems from the anti-trafficking directive—in particular, victims’ rights to support, assistance and protection. I have a particular interest in this subject because I took Northern Ireland’s equivalent legislation to the Modern Slavery Act—the human trafficking and exploitation Act—through the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although one of the central purposes of the directive is that the assistance and support should
“enable the victim to recover”,
there is no statutory requirement for support and assistance for victims in the Modern Slavery Act.
Section 50 of the Act, which deals with the statutory requirement to provide victim support, has never been used and remains optional, depending on the views of the current Minister. In this respect, the Modern Slavery Act is quite unlike the human trafficking and exploitation Act in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, in both of which the obligation to enable the victim to recover is transposed from the trafficking directive and on to the face of law in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I note that, when previously challenged on this point, the Government said there would be no erosion of the rights of victims of human trafficking in England and Wales following the demise of the directive at the end of this year because legal obligations to victims under the Council of Europe human trafficking convention and under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights remain unchanged. However, this assertion is deeply problematic and, to remind noble Lords why, I ask your Lordships to recall the period of May 2010 to March 2011. In May 2010, Britain was subject to both the Council of Europe trafficking directive and Article 4 of the ECHR, and the Government decided that they would opt out of the EU anti-trafficking directive because they claimed we did not need it. There was then a public outcry and a campaign by NGOs and Members of this House which resulted in the Government U-turning and opting into the directive in March 2011.
The convention covers much of the same ground as the directive, including victim support. The reason why those who work with victims of trafficking were not prepared to say, “Don’t worry about the EU anti-trafficking directive, because we are already signed up to the convention,” is very simple. The sanctions that exist in international law are much weaker than those in domestic or EU law. The passion that drove those who care for victims of human trafficking to campaign for Britain to opt into the EU anti-trafficking directive between May 2010 and March 2011, when we were already signed up to the human trafficking convention and Article 4 of the ECHR, means that the ongoing presence of the human trafficking convention and Article 4 of the ECHR are never going to result in those of us who speak for victims of human trafficking meekly trading the directive for the Modern Slavery Act, as currently defined, when that Act provides no statutory right to victim support.
Some might say, “But isn’t the statutory obligation to provide victim support part of retained EU law?” If we could be clear today that victim support is part of retained EU law, then the Government could respond to this debate by promising not to use the powers in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to remove these rights. That would at least provide an assurance as far as the current Administration are concerned.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this afternoon my noble friend Lord Newby, speaking on a business Motion, made the point that Private Members’ Bills should come back on to our Order Paper. This would certainly be a candidate for that. I referred to this directive when I spoke to my Amendment 6 earlier today. We have heard long, careful and impassioned speeches from previous speakers, so I do not intend to say a great deal, but that should not be taken to be any indication that I do not feel strongly about these issues.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is about how the support that we would all want to see for victims of trafficking is given. The Modern Slavery Act is only five years old, but thinking has moved on since then. Knowledge and understanding have moved on. We need to continue to develop and refine the support that is made available and recognise it as a right beyond guidance. It is a moral duty and it needs to be made certain in law. It does not require much imagination to understand that the need for protection varies from victim to victim, but it is likely to have to be long and intensive and, as we have debated in other contexts, certainty is an important component of recovery. I support this amendment very warmly.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to support amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and I pay tribute to his tireless work in this area over many years and I wish him success in the future. I am sure he will be successful. I hope we will shortly hear a positive reply from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, confirming that the EU anti-trafficking directive will still apply and that the Government will go further. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, told us, leaving the EU does not compel us to offer less protection and less support to victims of modern slavery and trafficking.
I am also aware that in March, only a few months ago, the Government said that at the end of the transition period the UK will no longer be bound by the trafficking directive but they have not set out plans to retain or incorporate any of the directive into UK law. That is a worrying and alarming position. I will go further and suggest that it is hugely damaging to our reputation abroad. The UK has a reputation of being a safe haven for people fleeing persecution and for people in distress. We have a reputation as a compassionate country that deals with victims of abuse, trafficking and slavery justly, fairly and properly, but there have been too many occasions when this Government have shown a cruel, uncaring streak which I would not expect from a Government of the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, can take up the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and provide the Committee with the reassurance for which it is asking. At a minimum, we need to hear from the Government that they will put in place legislation that ensures that no matter what else happens as a result of Brexit, victims will be no worse off and will have no fewer rights than they have at present. In many areas they need to have more rights and to be treated with more compassion.
We also need to have on the record from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the effect as he sees it of paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 on the position of victims of trafficking and their current protections. I support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for at least a commitment from the Government not to use these powers to erode the rights and protections of victims.
I have in the past supported, and will continue to do so until he is successful, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in his entirely correct campaign to speak up for the victims of modern slavery and afford them the same protections in England and Wales that legislation in both Northern Ireland and Scotland provides. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, should be congratulated for taking the equivalent legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly. It offers more protections that I, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and other Members of this House want to see applied to England and Wales.
I support the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for Private Members’ Bills to come back on the business agenda, and for me the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, should be top of the pile. It is a matter of great regret that the Government have not been prepared to support the noble Lord’s Bill. It is passed by this House and then crashes on the rocks in the other place, not even getting to the point of being discussed. That is a matter of much regret. The Government could in future agree to support the Bill and give it government time or, even better, announce maybe today or later that they will table a government amendment to appropriate legislation to ensure that the protections victims have in Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of further care from the state will now be afforded to them in England in Wales.
Other than that, the Modern Slavery Act is a very good Act. Lots of good work was done by the former Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, to get it; she made a personal commitment to do that. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley served on the joint Bill committee to look at the legislation—I know lots of good work went on—but there is one area of further protections that the law is missing, and we should do more in that regard. For that reason, I very much support the call of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to this debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, paying tribute to my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich for not just his important contribution to the debate this evening but his long-standing interest and valiant work in the field of tackling modern slavery. As he knows, the Government are firmly committed to tackling this appalling crime, ensuring that victims are provided with the support they need to begin to rebuild their lives and that those responsible for these crimes are prosecuted.
In October last year the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to continue my right honourable friend Theresa May’s world-leading work in tackling modern slavery, which I am pleased the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has paid tribute to this evening. As a result of that work, we are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before.
As your Lordships have heard, in 2015 the Government introduced the landmark Modern Slavery Act, which gave law enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, including maximum life sentences for perpetrators and enhanced protection for victims—but as my noble friend Lord Randall said, there is always more we can do. As my noble friend Lord McColl put it, we should seek to have the very best provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, we should show the way here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is absolutely right that we see the tactics of the criminals evolve over time and we have to make sure we keep pace.
That is why the Government are currently undertaking a programme to transform how we identify and support victims of modern slavery, emphasising our continued commitment to having a world-leading system as we leave the European Union. As part of this, we are looking carefully at the legal framework in this area.
As I hope my noble friend Lord McColl will recognise, the system of identification and support for victims of modern slavery and the legal framework around it go far beyond the scope of the Bill we are debating. Indeed, the most commonly represented nationality among those referred to the national referral mechanism in 2019 was British. It is important to see this as distinct from an immigration issue alone.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I want to respond to a couple of points. The Modern Slavery Act, which has been mentioned, is a very good piece of legislation, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree to talk to his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others in the Home Office, because the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has a real point here. Good though it is, the Act is not as good as the legislation that the assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland have put on the statute book. This point has been raised persistently. For some reason, the Government, while willing to talk about it, are not willing to act. That is regrettable, because in other ways it is very good legislation. It would be good for our country if all our legislation was comparable. The protection of victims is deficient compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to make that commitment to speak not just to my noble friend but also to the relevant Minister, Victoria Atkins, who I know is looking carefully at the legal framework here and will want to be sure that she has taken note of the contributions made this evening. I will pass them on to her and have that discussion.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to the Minister himself. It is very encouraging. I think the gist of it is that victim support rights specifically within the directive will definitely be part of retained EU law. I am thankful for that, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. 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 2: Irish citizens: entitlement to enter or remain without leave
Amendment 8
Baroness Hamwee
“(6) The Secretary of State may not conclude that the deportation of an Irish citizen is conducive to the public good under section 3(5)(a) unless he or she concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires deportation.(7) No person of any nationality is liable for deportation under section 3(5)(b) on the ground that they belong to the family of an Irish citizen who is or has been ordered to be deported, unless subsection (3)(a) is satisfied in respect of that Irish citizen.(8) An Irish citizen may not be deported or excluded from the United Kingdom if—(a) the Irish citizen was born in Northern Ireland; and(b) at the time of the Irish citizen’s birth, at least one of his or her parents was—(i) a British citizen; or(ii) an Irish citizen; or(iii) a British citizen and an Irish citizen; or(iv) otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment protects the threshold for deportation of Irish citizens and ensures that no-one born in Northern Ireland may be deported.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 8 concerns protections against deportation for Irish citizens. It might seem a little counterintuitive to noble Lords that it is necessary to provide protection at all because it is inherent, as it were, given our relationship with Ireland, the common travel area and so on.
Since 2007, the Government’s policy position has been to deport Irish citizens only where a court has recommended it in sentencing or where the Secretary of State concludes, due to exceptional circumstances, that the public interest requires it. That reflects the special status that Irish citizens have, as I have mentioned, with close historical community and political ties, as well as the common travel area.
However, this is a matter of executive policy not protected by any level of legislation. It currently permits the deportation of Irish citizens in a range of circumstances, circumscribed by EU law relating to free movement. The protections of EU law come to an end in less than four months, so there will be no law to stop a future Government reversing the position. Domestic law would allow them to do so. However, that is completely separate from the UK’s membership of the EU. There is not a democratic basis on which to remove these protections when free movement comes to an end.
The Government have expressed no intention to change the policy position, so it would be good to take the opportunity to incorporate the greater protective status for Irish citizens into law. The position is particularly confusing, given that the Government have taken steps to remove Irish citizens from the automatic deportation regime. They could easily have done so for the rest of the regime and not just when an individual is sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment. The legal position is not corrected by the Bill, and in fact Clause 2(2) weakens the protection because it does not put in place a replacement for the safety net that EU law has provided.
The Good Friday agreement envisages that Irish citizens from Northern Ireland should not, as a matter of law, be able to be excluded or deported from the UK, but that is not currently reflected in UK immigration law. Because British citizens cannot be excluded or deported from the UK there is a risk that, when an Irish citizen from Northern Ireland is threatened with deportation, they will have to assert British citizenship in order to continue to live in Northern Ireland. That goes against both the spirit and the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which allows all people of Northern Ireland to remain in the territory whether they identify as Irish, British or both.
Mentioning the Good Friday agreement reminds us of the importance of the involvement of the devolved Administrations—the different experiences, economies and needs in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. However, we also need to keep in our minds the Good Friday agreement and the opportunity that we have here to set what is executive policy into law.
Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the reciprocal rights of the common travel area. I obviously do not oppose the substance of this but we are very near the end of the transition period. The law being created by the Bill—or perhaps I might say the law being destroyed by the Bill—will happen in less than four months, and the protection of rights is a matter for now.
Late on Friday, the Government published a draft statutory instrument, which we will have a word about when we come to the next group. It was only when I looked at the fact sheet that I saw something positive about Irish citizens. The clearest part of the instrument relates to exclusions but I would like to be inclusive. Therefore, although I support the sentiments of Amendment 58, I really think it is a matter for now, and I hope that noble Lords can support Amendment 8, which I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her very clear introduction and explanation of the reasons for Amendment 8, to which I am delighted to attach my name. The noble Baroness set out very clearly the need for legal certainty and security for Irish citizens and people born in Northern Ireland.
Rather than repeating all these things again, I think it is worth very briefly addressing the whole issue of deportations. Of course, in this context, I cannot avoid mentioning the Windrush generation, the hostile environment and the fact that we have increasingly come to see people who have perhaps spent effectively all of their life in the UK, who have very close ties to the country and whose entire upbringing and experiences are in the UK facing deportation. That is utterly unacceptable in any circumstances but the situation with Irish citizens and the Common Travel Area involves two countries between which there has been continual, regular interchange and movement. A large number of people could potentially be affected by this situation, people who could see their lives torn apart. It is crucial that we build in these protections.
We have a great deal to do and it is already late so I will not go on too much longer, but I also want to mention briefly—having listened very closely to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the debate on the previous amendment, in which many expressed the sentiment that we should have world-leading protection in the UK for victims of trafficking and modern slavery—that I associate the Green group with those sentiments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I speak strongly in support of Amendment 8 as moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Like my noble friend, I understand Amendment 58 but, as she said, we need statutory underpinning rather than exploration of the situation because there is no one place where rights under the Common Travel Area are collected. They are still largely expressed in a bilateral convention and now a memorandum of understanding.
The Common Travel Area rights have been overlaid in recent decades by EU free movement rights, so it is entirely legitimate to worry about rights under the CTA when free movement is stripped away. My friend in the other place, Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party —I call him a friend because it is the Lib Dems’ sister party—said that there had been mixed and confusing signals about Irish citizens and the EU settlement scheme. Some have been told that they need not apply but they can, while Irish citizens from Northern Ireland are told that they should not apply. As he also said, on the face of it, Clause 2 goes some way towards giving reassurance and addressing anomalies. However, it spells out not rights but only ministerial powers, and it only applies to immigration issues—especially deportation —whereas the EU settlement scheme covers a much wider range, such as family reunion, equality of treatment, rights of the employed and self-employed, recognition of qualifications and voting. Stephen Farry recalled that only the right of voting for Irish citizens is explicit in UK law. Ideally, therefore, there should be a UK-Ireland treaty perhaps or, at least, an elaboration in statute of the rights of Irish citizens.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendments 8 and 58. On Amendment 58, I speak as a person who holds Irish nationality but lives in the United Kingdom. For me, the purpose of this amendment is to oblige Ministers to provide a report that draws on the scope of the common travel area-associated rights, cross referencing and contrasting these with the rights under the EU settled status scheme. This would allow Irish citizens to make informed decisions on securing their rights after the end of the transition period. As a result of an amendment in Committee in the other place, information was received on the issue of deportation and the Government confirmed that the one advantage to an Irish citizen of applying to the EU settlement scheme is the right to a family reunion. The Government had not made that clear beforehand.
Clause 2 will establish a stand-alone right for Irish citizens to enter and reside in the UK. However, under the Good Friday agreement citizenship provisions, the people of Northern Ireland have birth-right entitlements to be British or Irish, or both, and to equality of treatment regardless of that choice. In practice, the legal underpinning of equality of treatment for British and Irish citizens in Northern Ireland on matters such as entry, residence, work and social protection, and so on, has been provided almost entirely by EU free movement law. After Brexit, the people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens, including dual British-Irish citizens, will retain EU citizenship, but the only route to retain access to such EU free movement rights is through the EU settled status scheme. This is the domestic route for EU citizens and their family members in the UK prior to Brexit to retain EU rights and benefits under part 2 of the withdrawal agreement, which are usually retained for life.
I understand that the Government’s position is that Irish citizens do not need to apply for the EU settled status scheme, but may wish to do so. The reasoning behind the Government’s position that Irish citizens do not need to apply for settled status is that Irish citizens can still rely on the associated reciprocal rights of the UK-Ireland common travel area. However, at the time of the referendum, reciprocal rights of the CTA barely existed at all in UK law across key areas and thus a non-binding memorandum of understanding has been entered into since. With the exception of social security, CTA provision remains vague. In the words of the Human Rights Commission report, it is “written in sand”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, already referred to, and it
“can be characterised by loose administrative arrangements or provisions that can be altered at any time.”
While the clock ticks on the closing of the opportunity to apply to retain EU free movement rights under this settled status scheme, it is not possible for Irish citizens at present to make an informed choice because it is unclear ultimately what the associated CTA rights will cover and whether they will be enshrined in a legally binding manner.
The Home Office also initially debarred all people of Northern Ireland from applying for settled status, further to a policy position adopted in 2012 to treat all persons born in Northern Ireland as British. The decision was adopted to impede the exercise of EU rights by Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to be joined by non-EU family members. That position was challenged by the Emma and Jake DeSouza case, and the Home Office recently announced a policy change which will allow certain amendments in that area. It will also allow open access to relevant persons from Northern Ireland through the settlement scheme. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to oblige Ministers to provide a report that draws out the scope of the CTA associated rights, cross referencing and contrasting them with the rights under the EU settlement scheme.
In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that the opinion of both human rights commissions on the island of Ireland is that the rights of the common travel area are written in sand, what do the Government intend to do to enshrine those rights and ensure that they can be used to obtain legal redress? Secondly, in the absence of a report from the Government that contrasts the scope of the CTA rights with the rights provided for under settled status, do the Government accept that Irish citizens are left with little information to enable them to determine whether they wish to apply for settled status? I look forward to answers from the Minister in your Lordships’ House this evening.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group: Amendments 8 and 58. Amendment 58 is proposed by myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. The purpose of this amendment is clear and was ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, a moment ago.
We often discuss matters around Ireland and Irish citizens, and I am always conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who is first-generation Irish, usually speaks for the Government, and I, who am second-generation Irish, respond for the Opposition. In addition, if you look at the number of people connected to Ireland around the House or in the other place, it sets out the great contribution that Irish people have made to this country and the great links we have there, whether in the Republic, Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Those links have done wonders for both our countries, and we must always ensure that we underpin that so the strength grows. My own parents lived in the UK for many years and have now retired back in the Republic. Amendment 58 seeks to add clarity to the situation for citizens that could be affected, which is always important when it comes to people’s rights. People could lose their rights, so clarity is important.
The Bill as it stands ends EU free movement and establishes a stand-alone right for Irish citizens to enter and reside in the UK. As noble Lords have heard, under the Good Friday agreement citizen provisions people in Northern Ireland have a birth-right entitlement to be either British or Irish or both. Equality of treatment is regardless of that choice, which is a very important underpinning. Nothing must be allowed to unpick that. The Government’s position is that Irish citizens do not need to apply to the EU settled status scheme; they can rely on the associated reciprocal rights of the common travel area, but they can apply if they wish. We have heard talk about the common travel area’s rights being written in sand. It is fair to say that we need clarity here, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
The amendment seeks that, within 30 days of the Bill becoming an Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out in detail the rights of citizens under the common travel area, EU rights and benefits under the EU settlement scheme, and then delineate between the two so that we know exactly where we stand. This is necessary due to the inconsistency of the Government on a whole range of policy areas. Let us be clear: matters can be changed, clarified, replaced, restored, reversed, revisited, substituted, switched, U-turned and varied with such speed that, even when the Prime Minister was on his feet in the other place, the latest Government U-turn was under way. To expect people to rely on what the Government announce is not credible. We need this amendment on the face of the Bill, and we need the Secretary of State to produce the report.
Amendment 8, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to put the protections enjoyed by our citizens on the face of the Bill. If the Government are not prepared to accept that amendment, can the noble Baroness set out how the rights as expressed in Amendment 8 will be protected and guaranteed by the Government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says, I often speak as first-generation Irish and he speaks as second-generation Irish, so I think one could say that we have a personal interest in getting this right and reiterating those rights in the Bill. Both the UK and Irish Governments have committed to maintaining the common travel area, which I will now call the CTA. It is underpinned by deep-rooted, historical ties and, crucially, predates our membership of the European Union.
It has been agreed with the EU that the UK and Ireland can continue to make arrangements between themselves when it comes to the CTA. This means that we will continue to allow British and Irish citizens to travel freely between the UK and Ireland and reside in either jurisdiction, and commit to protecting a number of wider rights and privileges associated with the CTA. These include the ability to work, study and access healthcare and public services. Both Governments confirmed that position on 8 May last year, through signing a CTA memorandum of understanding, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The Government has included Clause 2 in the Bill to ensure that Irish citizens can enter and remain in the UK, without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from, except in a limited number of circumstances.
Amendment 58 also seeks to require the Government to publish details of the rights and benefits provided by the EU settlement scheme. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 protects the residence rights of EEA citizens and their family members for those individuals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period and for eligible family members seeking to join a relevant EEA citizen in the UK after that time. By applying for UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme, they can also continue to work, study and, where eligible, access benefits and services, such as free NHS treatment, as they do now.
While Irish citizens resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 can apply to the EU settlement scheme if they want, they do not need to. Their eligible family members can apply to the scheme, whether or not the Irish citizen has done so. However, Irish citizens resident in the UK by 31 December this year may wish to apply to the scheme to make it easier to prove their status in the UK in the event that they wish to bring eligible family members to the UK in the future.
The Government have therefore already made it clear that both the CTA and the EU settlement scheme provide Irish citizens with a number of rights following the end of free movement, and we will continue to emphasise that commitment. I hope that that gives the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, comfort enough not to move Amendment 58.
Turning to the question of deportation raised by either the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it is getting late—Amendment 8 seeks to make additional provision with regards to the deportation of Irish citizens and their family members. First, subsection (6) seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State may not conclude that the deportation of an Irish citizen is conducive to the public good, unless she concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires deportation.
Subsection (7) seeks to ensure that the family member of an Irish citizen can be deported only on the grounds that their family member is or has been deported, where the Secretary of State has concluded that the deportation of the Irish citizen is conducive to the public good and, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the public interest requires their deportation.
I use this opportunity to reiterate our approach to deporting Irish citizens. While Clause 2 disapplies the right to enter and remain in the UK, without leave, for those Irish citizens who are subject to a deportation order, in light of the historical, community and political ties between the UK and Ireland, along with the existence of the CTA, Irish citizens are considered for deportation only where a court has recommended deportation or where the Secretary of State concludes that, due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, deportation is in the public interest—much in the way that was pointed out by the noble Baroness.
The Government are firmly committed to maintaining this approach. Irish citizens were exempted from the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007 by the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid in February 2019, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out.
Under the Immigration Act 1971, the family member of an Irish citizen would not be considered for deportation on the grounds that their family member is or has been ordered to be deported, unless a deportation order was made in respect of that Irish citizen. The amendment also seeks to prevent the deportation or exclusion from the UK of an Irish citizen if they are among the “people of Northern Ireland” entitled to identify as Irish citizens by virtue of Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish agreement of 1998.
I make it absolutely clear that the Government are fully committed to upholding all parts of the Belfast agreement, including the identity provisions which allow the “people of Northern Ireland” to identify as Irish, British or both, as they may so choose, and the citizenship provisions which allow the “people of Northern Ireland” to hold both British and Irish citizenship. Recognising the citizenship provisions in the Belfast agreement, we would consider any case extremely carefully, and not seek to deport a “person of Northern Ireland” who is solely an Irish citizen. Exclusion decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis by Ministers. Exclusion of a person from the UK is normally used in circumstances involving national security, international crimes—including war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide—serious criminality or corruption and unacceptable behaviour. It is essential to the security of the UK that Ministers retain the power to exclude in such serious circumstances, although of course all cases are considered extremely carefully.
I hope that with these explanations, the noble Baroness can withdraw her Amendment 8.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister was unsure whether points were made by my noble friend Lady Ludford or by me. I cannot speak for my noble friend, whom I am very happy to be confused with, but speaking for myself, I cannot claim any Irish family connections, although I have a lot of friendships. Amendment 58, calling for a report, begs the question of what would happen if the report showed that the current position is inadequate, as I think it would. That is the thrust of Amendment 8, and why it is seeking to use the opportunity of the Bill to set the position in stone rather than sand.
The Minister’s response seemed to confirm the points that I had made. She talked about the common travel area memorandum, but it is only a memorandum. The Bill has the effect of weakening the legal protections. It does not reflect the spirit of the Belfast agreement.
I thought it was telling—and frankly embarrassing and even shaming—to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminding the House that the protection depends on EU law. She made the point that it is not possible to make an informed choice, which is also extremely telling because, as she said, the common travel area arrangements are written in sand. I had not thought of that when I tabled my amendment, but it is intended to ensure that those sands do not shift.
I do not disbelieve what the Minister has said, but she has talked about the Executive attitude, not the legal position. While of course I do not question her integrity, she will know as well as I do that Executives change, as do their views. I am sorry that we have not been able to make more progress on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. 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, or any other in the group, to a Division, should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision
Amendment 9
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s discretion and preclude her or him from making regulations which are not necessary.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, I shall speak also to Amendments 10, 11, 13, and 35 to 38, in my name and that of my noble friend, and to my objection that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.
In the debate on Amendment 3, we heard some precise and forensic criticism of the drafting of the Bill. I could almost say—but I will not—that we could just read across to this group all that was said in that debate. I will resist that temptation.
Clause 4 provoked the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to repeat the view of the Constitution Committee that skeleton Bills inhibit parliamentary scrutiny, that it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which their use is acceptable, and that the Government must provide a justification for them. The committee describes the Bill as leaving so much of the post-transition period regimes for immigration and for social security co-ordination—the subject of Clause 5— to be “provided for in regulations”. “By-passing Parliament”, the phrase used, must cause anyone with any interest in the governance of the UK to be really worried. I must say that people are worried about the governance of the UK whether they think about it in those terms or, as is currently the position, they do not under- stand what the Government are telling them to do.
There is a need for the provision of mechanics for ending free movement; this has not suddenly come upon us out of the blue. While of course I accept that this is a complex area, it means that there is all the more need to have got on with the detail and published it, even during the Parliament before last, so that we could have considered it. After all, the referendum was held four years ago last June, and Article 50 was triggered in March 2017.
The “breathtakingly wide” powers—I quote the Public Law Project—which it is proposed will be given to the Secretary of State, would give anyone pause. The Public Law Project says that its work on Brexit
“seeks to promote Parliamentary sovereignty.”
That is a point worth making in the context of this debate. The term “parliamentary sovereignty” may have a familiar ring in the context of Brexit.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 32 and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for his support. This amendment would ensure that the powers in Clause 4 were limited in line with the spirit of the Long Title, which addresses EU law, and would not allow the Secretary of State to change the rules regarding non-EEA or Swiss migrants under the cover of “connected purposes”.
I tabled this amendment for two reasons. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am concerned about the wide nature of the powers in the Bill—breath-takingly wide, in her words—and the excessive use of secondary legislation. Others have already made this point better than I can in earlier discussion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to concerns expressed today and to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It would be a great pleasure to hear from its chairman, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who is sitting next to me in a socially distanced manner.
Secondly, in discussion with our excellent clerks, it emerged that amendments to Clause 4 tabled in this House could relate only to EEA or Swiss citizens. Examples include Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, on immigration caps, Amendment 27 on the prior advertising of jobs in the domestic market—to which I have added my name—and Amendment 29 on the employment of asylum seekers in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
My reading of the paperwork on, for example, the points-based immigration system, and the discussion to date is that the Clause 4 power may be used to set down immigration rules or revisions which apply to third-country citizens as well. I must ask my noble friend the Minister for a clear answer on whether this is the intention or not. If that is the case, I am sure that she and the whole House would agree that we must be able to table amendments to the Bill that relate to third-country citizens as well, otherwise we will not be scrutinising the Bill properly.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I also very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as his committee has provided us with two excellent reports which have been of great assistance, particularly with regard to Clause 4.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee pinched one of my quotes, but I will use the other one from the Delegated Powers Committee report, which stated that
“we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”,
and by negative procedure regulations, unless it amended primary legislation. I think we can take from that that they do not think very much of Clause 4 and the schedule.
Even if there is some value in the fact that the first regulations are by “made affirmative” rather than negative procedure, those rights could be abolished by new regulations under Clause 4, when the negative procedure would apply. Therefore, any value there is in “made affirmative” over negative procedure could be removed by some deft sequencing of regulations. Everything points to the justification of having a test of necessity.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 is also problematic. It potentially disapplies any retained EU law in the context of immigration. This could lead to the repeal of legal protections far beyond the realms of free movement. It could dent the EU law retained by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because, even though provisions might have been partially saved by the Act, those provisions would not apply to the extent that
“they are inconsistent with or otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts or otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.
That is amazingly broad. We had some fun over the Brexit draft legislation with delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses and so on, but I have not seen anything quite to match this. The phrase
“functions in connection with immigration”
can relate to almost any aspect of immigration control within the UK. This is broadened even further when it is linked to the test of “capable of affecting”. It lacks any objective parameters by which to be able to ascertain the intended targets. Immigration practitioners trying to advise clients will be totally at sea. It undermines the rule of law if people do not know what the law is or could be in this area. They are going to be unable to make their behaviour fit the law.
A number of measures could be cited. Trafficking victims have already been discussed on an earlier group of amendments. Asylum seekers were protected under the reception conditions directive, which the UK opted into although it did not opt into all the asylum legislation. During the debate on an earlier group of amendments, my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the protection of victims of crime and the victims’ rights directive. These protections are potentially at risk as collateral damage from the ending of free movement. Even if the Government do not intend at this moment to repeal these provisions, they must explain why they could fall within the Bill and how they are going to introduce some rigour into the drafting of the Bill, such that this collateral damage does not happen.
With my support, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has put forward one solution in Amendment 11. All the amendments in this group are intended to provide the tightening up that is so sadly lacking from the drafting of the Bill as presented to us.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
It is my pleasure to follow the three noble Baroness who have spoken. In our earlier session I strongly disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, but in this case, I agree with her concerns and share her experience of apparent inequality. I sought to table a number of amendments to the Bill to deal more broadly not with just EU and EEA citizens, but I was told that they were outside the scope, yet it appears that the Government are being given open slather to address anything they like through the Bill.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 32, which is an important amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she indicated, this amendment bears directly on the anomaly that lies at the heart of the Bill. It purports to deal with aspects of our withdrawal from the EU, so one would expect it to deal with the consequences for citizens of the EU and the EEA only. However, in its report of 2 September the Constitution Committee stressed that this Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary to secondary legislation.
I expect the Government to argue that changes to Immigration Rules have long been dealt with by a process similar to that for statutory instruments, but to introduce an entirely new system in this way is a very different matter. Furthermore, in its report of 25 August, the Delegated Powers Committee, from which we will hear very shortly, pointed out that the “made affirmative” procedure that the Government have chosen will mean that the new regulations will come into force before they are debated in Parliament.
Finally, as I understand the position, the Home Office is working on a complete revision of the Immigration Rules which might run to several hundred pages. They could be put through Parliament with no serious examination before they come into force. I think the Minister mentioned something to this effect earlier. Will she clarify the position? Is this indeed what is likely to happen?
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As a member of the Delegated Powers Committee I strongly support all the points made in our report and, along with other noble Lords, I very much look forward to hearing from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I am aware that part 6A of the Immigration Rules sets out the points-based system which applies to migrants from the rest of the world. EEA citizens will move from a position of free movement to having to find their way through a thicket of literally hundreds of pages of rules and guidance currently applying to the rest of the world. Will the points-based system be adjusted for EEA citizens? If so, in what ways will the EEA rules diverge from the current system set up in part 6A? The framework should surely be in the Bill.
Clause 4 has potentially life-changing consequences for a large number of people—an issue raised by the Delegated Powers Committee report. Ministers are given the power to modify primary legislation or to modify retained EU legislation, which has a similar status to primary legislation, as noble Lords know. These provisions, together with the power for Ministers to introduce regulations on any subject in connection with Part I of the Bill, provide incredibly wide powers for Ministers.
I want to take just one example of an issue which needs to be dealt with in the Bill and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will raise a number of others. Tier 3 of the PBS which applies to unskilled workers has never been opened. We know that the UK is likely to face severe shortages of so-called unskilled workers in some sectors, most particularly health and social care but a number of others as well. Can the Minister press her colleagues to spell out in the Bill the key changes envisaged to the PBS, at least for the short to medium term, to keep the UK economy functioning adequately? Then, of course, Ministers could have the powers to introduce regulations to adjust the system over time. I fully recognise that there would be a need for that.
We all understand the need for Ministers to be able to introduce consequential amendments through secondary legislation, such as removing the references to free movement scattered across the statute book. Typically, however, most consequential amendments are put in the Bill and then regulations are used to tidy up the bits and pieces that were somehow missed during its passage.
We are invited by counsel to the Delegated Powers Committee to consider whether Ministers’ powers to make consequential amendments through regulations should be restricted by a test of necessity. Can the Minister convince the Committee that the wide powers to make consequential amendments to this Bill are in fact necessary? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s defence, if you like, of the breadth of those consequential amendments left to regulations. Why cannot most such amendments be included in the Bill before Report? I am sure colleagues would support a short delay before Report to allow that to be done.
Even more serious than the power to make unlimited consequential amendments is the power to make regulations in connection with Part I of the Bill, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I strongly support the amendment from the Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to deal with that issue. This would of course become redundant if Clause 4 were replaced with a string of substantive clauses.
Can the Minister provide an adequate justification for the broad discretion given to Ministers to levy fees or charges on anyone seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who until the end of the transition period would have had free movement rights under EU law? If not, then these matters must surely be in the Bill with provision for Ministers to adjust the fees or charges over time. As others have said, transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are surely known. Why are they not in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could explain that.
Finally, I had understood that Brexit was all about restoring the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This is just one of a series of Bills transferring powers from the EU not to the UK Parliament but to Ministers. We know that even where the affirmative procedure will be used, Parliament has no real power to influence the shape of those regulations. I hope the Minister will do all she can to achieve a more democratic outcome to this Bill, even at this late stage, by replacing Clause 4 with a series of clauses spelling out the Government’s policies, or at least the framework of those policies, to adjust the points-based system to meet the needs of the UK economy in the post-Brexit world.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
It is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, one of the most distinguished members of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am particularly grateful that she has not stolen all the sexiest bits of our report and has left me some original bits to quote, although a number of noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, also quoted extensively from it. Perhaps I should sit down and say, “I agree with everyone who has gone before me”, but since I have been here in the Palace for about eight hours, working upstairs, I feel I should earn my crust.
I am speaking on Clause 4 stand part only to draw attention to some of the key points of the Delegated Powers Committee report on the Bill. I am privileged to chair that committee but, in view of some of the highly critical reports we have made recently, my noble friends may be pleased to know that I will be standing down as chair. My term is up by Christmastime, so there may be a more emollient chairman in future.
Last week I spoke on the Delegated Powers Committee report on the medicines Bill and quoted extensively from it. Our report then was hard hitting and I make no apology that I was robust—I suppose I was not robust but scathing—in my condemnation of the delegated powers, which in my opinion were an affront to democracy. I said then that the Bill was “not unique”, just another in a long line of skeleton Bills with all the blank spaces to be filled in by delegated legislation—much of it negative, of course.
Today I will not be as vicious in my remarks, but I report in sorrow that this Bill also has some fundamentally excessive delegated powers. Clause 4(1) confers on the Secretary of State powers to make regulations containing
“such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision”
of Part 1 of the Bill, including Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation. The combination of the permissive concept of whatever the Minister thinks appropriate, as opposed to necessary, the words “in connection with” the Bill, the subject matter of Part 1, ending free movement, and the number of persons who will be affected make all this a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive.
With regard to those provisions, my Committee said:
“As we said in our earlier Report, we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations (assuming no amendment was made to primary legislation).”
As for the scrutiny of regulations, we are concerned that the first set of regulations would be made by the “made affirmative” procedure, avoiding legislative scrutiny before they come into effect, but subsequent ones would be draft affirmative—but only if they amended primary legislation. Everything else would be negative, even if the regulations amend or repeal what is known as retained direct principal EU legislation. By contrast, the approach in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is that the affirmative procedure is mandatory where regulations modify retained direct principal EU law.
We were also concerned that delegated legislation could alter fees and charges enacted in primary legislation. As mentioned by noble Baronesses earlier, it is usual for legislation to have a schedule at the end listing consequential amendments and a provision that regulations can tidy up any missing bits or loose ends with further consequentials, but in Clause 4 the bulk of the consequentials will be done by regulations afterwards.
So we concluded, overall, the following:
“We remain of the view, expressed in our earlier Report, that clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power and that the Bill should be amended so that: the words ‘or in connection with’ are removed from clause 4(1); consequential amendments are included in the Bill itself, but with a power to add others (subject to a test of necessity) by regulations (subject to the affirmative procedure if primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation is amended or repealed); transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are included on the face of the Bill; clause 4(5) (about fees and charges) is removed, unless the Government can provide full justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power; and clause 4(6), which provides for the first set of regulations under clause 4(1) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure, is removed from the Bill.”
Those were the principal conclusions that we reached.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the purpose, scope and extent of delegated powers conferred on Ministers by Parliament. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill and to the members of the committee who have spoken, including their chair, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
The report raises serious concerns about the inappropriateness of the delegation of powers to the Executive and proposes changes which I fully support and endorse. However, it is disappointing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, highlighted, the committee has over some considerable time produced such reports but then the next Bill has come along and the same issues have been identified.
During the Brexit campaign, we kept being told about taking back control and the sovereignty of our Parliament, but here lots of things are being passed on to Ministers and that does not quite seem to me to be taking back control. It is a bit like the pledge about the NHS on the side of the leave campaign bus that has quietly been forgotten about.
Amendments 9 and 10 seek to deal with the first two points raised by the committee by removing the word “appropriate” and inserting “necessary”, and removing the words “or in connection with”. They are amendments to which I have put my name and which I fully support.
Amendment 11 seeks to put on the face of the Bill what the power to make regulations is intended to do. I look forward to hearing the Government’s explanation if they are not prepared to accept this.
Amendment 13 again adds “only”, seeking to ensure the powers taken are used only for what they are intended to do. That seems sensible to me. I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also seeks to ensure that the Bill does only what the Government say they want it to do. Like other amendments in this group, that seems a very sensible and proportionate measure, and I hope the Government will support it.
Amendment 35, which I have signed, seeks to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and ensure that SIs under Clause 4(1) are affirmative. Amendments 36, 37 and 38 follow on from that. The clause takes considerable powers for the Executive, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords tonight. These powers are not justified, and I support those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rosser, who have opposed the clause standing part of the Bill.
Your Lordships need only look at some of the points raised by the committee to see why noble Lords have tabled their opposition to the clause standing part. In paragraph 19, the committee is “disturbed” that the Government would use words to grant and confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate. In paragraph 26, the committee argues that
“transitional arrangements to protect existing legal rights … should appear on the face of the Bill”.
In paragraph 28, its expressed view is that
“clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power”.
I hope that, in the response to the debate, we will see considerable movement from the Government and that they take on the comments from the committee, which I fully support.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think I get the committee’s views on the delegated powers in this Bill, and they are not pretty. However, I thank the committee for making them.
I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this group of amendments and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for speaking to Amendment 32. These amendments seek to limit the scope of the regulation-making power in Clause 4 and address the parliamentary procedure for the regulations. It is right that Parliament pays close attention to the provision of delegated powers. I have noted the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its latest report of 25 August.
I am pleased that we have been able to share draft illustrative regulations to be made under this power later this year, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill. The draft regulations—which I understand will not be subject to any significant change, to answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from tonight and the other day—will, I hope, provide some reassurance as to how the Government intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 4.
There are clear constraints on the use of the power in Clause 4. It can be used only to make regulations that amend primary or secondary legislation
“in consequence of, or in connection with”
Part 1 of the Bill on ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It cannot be used in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU more generally or to make wider immigration changes.
Amendment 9 seeks to limit the use of the power to making changes that are considered “necessary”, not “appropriate”. Amendment 10 seeks to limit the power to changes that are only a consequence of Part 1 of the Bill and not in connection with it. I invite noble Lords to consider the illustrative draft of the regulations and take comfort that this power is specifically to deliver the end of free movement; it is not to be used for general changes to the immigration system.
The regulations will make the statute book coherent on the repeal of free movement, align the treatment of EEA citizens arriving from next year with that of non-EEA citizens and implement our obligations to afford equal treatment to those within scope of the residence provisions of the withdrawal agreement—nothing more than that.
Furthermore, Amendment 10 prevents the Government making changes required to align the treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens in the immigration system, which would undermine the new global points-based system. We cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
The Government have made every effort to specify in the delegated powers memorandum the type of changes to legislation required as a result of ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens, and to make provision for them in draft regulations. However, Amendment 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from making appropriate provision and would unacceptably narrow the scope of the power. Amendment 13 would have the effect of restricting the scope of the power to the powers listed in Clause 4(3).
Amendment 32, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to confine changes to fees and charges to EEA and Swiss citizens. That is already the principal purpose of Clause 4(5). However, the amendment would then prevent us from applying the skills charge to non-EEA family members of EEA citizens and from exempting from the skills charge a non-EEA family member with rights of residence and equal treatment under the withdrawal agreement. It would amount to a breach of the UK’s commitments under those agreements, and for that reason alone we cannot accept the amendment.
It is the will of the British people that we bring free movement to an end. This means ending the bias in our immigration system that favours EEA citizens over the citizens of any other country, which is the primary purpose of the Bill. Limiting the Government’s ability to apply a skills charge to EEA citizens in the same way as they apply to non-EEA citizens would mean that certain elements of free movement had not been fully repealed by the Bill, and that EEA citizens still had an advantage in our immigration system. That is not an outcome that the Government can accept.
On Amendments 35, 36, 37 and 38, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken, the first set of regulations made under this power will be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure, whereby they must be approved by both Houses within 40 days of being made if they are to remain in force. The “made affirmative” procedure is needed in the likely event that there is a short window between Royal Assent to this Bill and the end of the transition period. For that reason, the affirmative procedure proposed by the noble Baroness does not work.
The people of the UK voted to leave the EU and take back control of our laws and our borders. It is therefore imperative that this House helps to deliver on that democratic mandate by ensuring that free movement is brought to an end by 31 December. It is important to ensure that regulations made under this power commence by then. Under the “made affirmative” procedure, both Houses will be asked to approve the regulations within 40 days of them being made for them to continue in force, so Parliament has scrutiny over the use of this power. If Parliament does not approve the regulations then they will cease to have effect, but subsection (10) preserves the effect of anything done under them before that point in order to ensure legal certainty. Using this power does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny—far from it—as the secondary legislation to be made under the power is subject to full parliamentary oversight using established procedures.
I think it is right that Parliament should set the scope of the power in Clause 4 in terms that are appropriate to the purpose of the Bill in ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It is also right that Parliament should retain appropriate oversight over the exercise of this power. However, the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU, and this parliamentary procedure is an essential part of delivering that. I hope the noble Baronesses and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe have been assured of the content of the draft regulations and the explanation of how the Government will use the delegated power. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Furthermore, some noble Lords have spoken to oppose that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I must emphasise the importance of this power for the effective implementation of the Bill. I trust that sight of the draft regulations provides further reassurance that the power does not give Ministers a blank cheque to make wide-ranging changes to immigration policies. The power can be used only to make provision as a consequence of or in connection with Part 1 of the Bill on the ending of free movement and protecting the status of Irish citizens, but without the power we cannot align immigration treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens, and cannot then build up our global points based system.
The regulations will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny using well-established procedures. Free movement must end on 31 December and the “made affirmative” procedure is needed to ensure regulations made under this power align the treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens who arrive in the country from 1 January 2021. It is important to debate the appropriate use of delegated powers, but the Government are committed to ending free movement now that we have left the EU and this clause is an essential part of it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, expressed some frustration about the limitations arising from the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Green, referred to similar points on the report of the Constitution Committee. I have long taken the view that, when people with very differing views have the same criticism as I do, we must have a point.
I omitted to thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its chair, although my thanks must be implied by all the references I made to them. That I quoted from the report did not steal the thunder of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, at all. He cannot be surprised, because they were very good quotes. I said that I hoped for some excoriating speeches. I had him in mind, but he has moved on to sorrow. However, he did not disappoint.
When I started to read Clause 4, I picked up my pen and did not put it down, which was obvious from my raft of amendments, which almost amounted to an edit of the clause. The Minister says that she seeks to reassure us about how the Government intend to use the powers. As I so often say, I do not doubt the good intentions behind all this, but I ask her if she would be comfortable if—unlikely as it may seem—our positions were reversed. Would she take comfort if I produced a draft that was illustrative only? She said several times that the Government cannot accept the amendments. It really amounts to “will not” accept the amendments. As regards “made affirmative”, how realistic would it be for Parliament to block the instrument regarding the ending of free movement, after free movement had ended?
There is such an absence of detail on the workings of the policy. The six “consequential repeals” in Schedule 1 do not “scratch the surface”; that is not my analysis but that of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, given the huge amount of immigration legislation. It also says that “a solitary page”, paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 1, purporting
“to remove all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which derive from EU law … is lazy law-making. If people are going to have their rights removed, it is incumbent on Government to list precisely what those rights are and then specifically to remove them.”
It says that that would also enable
“parliamentarians to know precisely what they are voting for”.
To revert to the reference made at the beginning of today’s debate by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, Caligula might have been proud of Clause 4. This is not the time to pursue the matter, although I am clear that we have to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 12. 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, or any other in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 12
Baroness Hamwee
“(2A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to make provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement as defined by section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the power cannot be used inconsistently with the Withdrawal Agreement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I shall speak also to Amendments 18, 19 and 83.
There is nothing subversive in Amendment 12—there is no cunning plan. All the amendments in this group are intended to ensure consistency with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It does what it says on the tin. In the light of Clause 4, which spells out the power to make regulations which “among other things” may modify primary legislation, these amendments seem to us to be necessary.
I was about to refer to the British in Europe group as a campaign group, but it is far more than that: it represents its stakeholders and argues very powerfully for the interests of British citizens in Europe. As the group puts it, the withdrawal agreement is the vital underpinning of rights created in UK law for UK citizens living in the EU and for EU citizens living here. In various debates over the past few months, noble Lords have tended to focus on the latter, because living here means being subject to UK law. But British citizens in the EU are British and must not be prejudiced by anything that is not in accordance with an international treaty.
I say that without having heard much news since this morning because of being, as it were, in the Chamber, but the news this morning was very much about not following through—not complying with—an international treaty. After all, we should all be entitled to rely on an international treaty.
Immigration law is so complex that to allow an inconsistency to slip through unintentionally is a real danger. Amendment 12, therefore, provides in terms that the power to make regulations does not include a power to make a provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement.
Amendments 18 and 19 aim to bring the clause into line with the two pieces of legislation that I have mentioned. Section 7(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 provides that, if the Minister considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1) may be made so as to apply both to persons to whom the provision in question applies and—this is the relevant point—to persons to whom the provision does not apply but who may be granted leave to enter or remain in the UK by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules and who do not have such leave. Amendment 18 would replicate that.
Amendment 83 deals with Clause 5, and it may be appropriate to come back to it when we debate Clause 5. However, again, its purpose is to ensure that the power created by the clause can be used only in ways which are consistent with our country’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement. “Retained direct EU legislation” is the full gamut of EU legislation on social security co-ordination, and under the withdrawal agreement the UK is committed to applying this legislation to all those who come within the scope of Part 2. Among other things, the legislation covers the aggregation of social security contributions made in different countries, mutual healthcare arrangements, the payment of pensions and pension increases for pensioners living in different countries, and the regulation of other cross-border benefits.
In practical terms, the most important aspect for British citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement is the continued right for them to receive their pension and pension increases. Many noble Lords will recall debates regarding pensions and pension increases for people who have moved away from the UK, outside the EU, and whose pensions have been frozen. Other aspects are the continued right of pensioners to healthcare under the S1 scheme, which enables a pensioner residing in a country not responsible for their pension to receive healthcare in the country of residence at the expense of the country paying the pension contributions. This is a mutual arrangement that also applies to EU pensioners living in the UK. One aspect of this is the continuation of the scheme whereby those who have worked in the UK and one or more EU countries have their contributions aggregated, so that they do not fall foul of the national rules on minimum contribution periods.
One of the very big concerns of people who lose the right of free movement is the impact on their retention of rights and ability to move in the course of work as their careers develop and their jobs take them to different countries. Without this scheme, many people who have contributed for a full working life but have moved several times would end up without a pension at all. Again, we are faced with the possibility of a Government modifying—or worse, perhaps—these provisions by regulation alone.
All the points that have been made this afternoon and this evening about what could happen are relevant here. Social security legislation probably rivals immigration legislation in its complexity, so the point that was made earlier about unwitting breaches of the withdrawal agreement would apply as well. I assume that we will have similar answers to this amendment, but, although the points may be similar and parallel, they are no less important or worthy of being pressed and explored, as I am seeking to do with Amendment 83. However, at the moment, I will formally move Amendment 12.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Flight. Lord Flight? As he is not present, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who moved them clearly and explained the importance of what is being sought by introducing them.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, this seems timely, given some of the recent very troubling reports. Lately, the possibility has arisen that the Government are not satisfied with the withdrawal agreement in some way, having signed it recently in good faith, while working, hopefully, towards an agreed exit after the transition period at the end of this year. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there is no intention of trying to override the withdrawal agreement in any way and that our country will not be seen to be trying to renege on an international agreement, especially so soon after having signed it.
I hope that UK citizens living in the EU can be reassured that the measures in the Bill will not be affected deleteriously by future regulations that might change what they thought was already enshrined in this international agreement and that pensions, pension increases, other benefits and health care will be protected, as was intended and implied in the withdrawal agreement. I also hope that the measures in the Bill will remain consistent with the withdrawal agreement and that no powers under the Bill will be used to make provisions inconsistent with that agreement.
I know these are probing amendments and I hope that the reassurances or necessary changes can be made to satisfy the House. I support the intention of these amendments and look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments, led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is about ensuring that the Government cannot legislate by regulation, contrary to the withdrawal agreement. This is a prescient set of amendments, tabled when it might not have been thought that there was a particular danger of that happening. However, the pronouncements and press reports since last night—there is some backtracking going on, however, which we will debate in the Chamber tomorrow—raise serious fears about the Government’s reliability and integrity in respecting the withdrawal agreement, and, indeed, any other treaty commitments. It raises the question of whether they can be trusted.
We will be debating separately the question of the Government’s refusal to give settled status applicants a physical document, not just a digital code. I will raise a brief query here: whether a digital code alone would satisfy the requirement in Article 18 of the withdrawal agreement for
“a document evidencing such status which may be in a digital form.”
Those latter words were added at the UK’s insistence, as we understand it, but it still talks about a document evidencing status. I wonder whether a digital code is a document.
Not least as a feature of the settled status scheme which has been flagged up by the3million, which does excellent work and has provided some fantastic briefing—I shall use this occasion to thank that organisation along with the organisation, British in Europe—non EU-national family members get a physical document in the form of a biometric residence permit. Since Article 12 of the withdrawal agreement requires the Government not to discriminate on the grounds of nationality, it is odd that EU citizens do not get a physical document but those in the family who are not EU citizens have a biometric residence permit. That is rather strange.
In the context of group 1, I raised comprehensive sickness insurance. The Minister said that the Government would use their discretion in deciding whether the absence of CSI in the past would bar a person from getting UK citizenship. I know that this will come up again in a later group. However, it is important to note that the UK is regarded by the European Commission as being in breach of EU law by insisting on the term “comprehensive sickness insurance” as it is in the 2004 citizens’ rights and freedom of movement directive. The Commission insists, as indeed MEPs did at the time, that this means only that relevant persons should have access to whatever the health system is locally, so the Government’s insistence that they should pay for private health insurance is, as I understand it, the subject of ongoing infringement proceedings.
In 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May promised EU citizens that the CSI—I prefer to call it private health insurance because that is what we are talking about—for those who had been economically inactive would be dropped as a requirement for settled status under the new system. However, what is happening now is that those people applying for citizenship are at risk of having their applications refused because in the past they did not have private health insurance, even though they had been told that they did not need it for their settled status application. When they apply for citizenship, they are told that retroactively they will be barred if they did not have private health insurance in the past. This feels like moving the goalposts, playing cat and mouse and so on, and the Government will not make any friends by this. The Minister referred to a power of discretion, but I do not believe that any details have been made known about how that would be applied, so that leaves people in the dark and in a state of anxiety.
I should mention also that Article 10 of the withdrawal agreement states that those covered by the citizens’ rights provisions of the agreement include
“Union citizens who exercised their right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law”.
Union law—that is, EU law—means that the ability to use the NHS qualifies as “comprehensive sickness insurance”; that is the view of the European Commission, which as I say is following infringement proceedings. If the Government persist with this, I fear that they will come up against problems under the withdrawal agreement and there is a risk that they would be seen to be acting in bad faith. The amendments in this group therefore insist that the Government must abide by the withdrawal agreement in making regulations under both Clause 4 and Clause 5, and that should include doing away with the retrospective demand. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on that point.
A great deal of justified concern has also been expressed about children either in or leaving care. I do not have time to talk about this now because it will come up again at least in part in a later group, but it is a matter of great concern. Local authorities, even with the best will in the world, have found over the past six months with the challenge of Covid that they have not had or have not applied the resources to assist children who ought to be applying under the settlement scheme. They are finding it very difficult to get the evidence together, so I hope that the Government can give some reassurance about the assistance that they will be given. We will also talk later about the dangers of another Windrush.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 12 and 83 provide that regulations under Clauses 4 and 5 respectively cannot make a provision that is inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. Amendments 18 and 19 alter the language of Clause 4 to bring it in line with the 2018 and 2020 withdrawal Acts. The wording of the Bill does not appear to preclude the concerns which these amendments seek to address. Indeed, Clause 4(1) states that
“The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of this Part”,
namely Part 1 of the Bill.
Clause 5 deals with the power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination, and again appears not to provide for the limitations sought in Amendment 83. Presumably it is not the Government’s intention to nullify or weaken the terms or protections of the withdrawal agreement, or the terms or protections of the withdrawal Acts, by regulations that avoid the full and proper parliamentary scrutiny and challenge that is achieved only in respect of primary legislation. That should become clearer from the Government’s response, which will be interesting in the light of media reports today of their allegedly negative attitude to keeping to the terms of the withdrawal agreement. Whether there is any significance to the wording in Clause 4(4) being different from the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 will also become clear.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this group of amendments, which concern the scope of the delegated regulation-making power under Clause 4 and, in the case of one of the amendments, Clause 5. As I have said, it is right that Parliament pays close attention to the provision of delegated powers, and to assist we have shared draft illustrative regulations to be made under Clauses 4 and 5, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill.
Amendments 12 and 83 prevent the Government from using the powers in Clauses 4 and 5 to make regulations which are inconsistent with the EU withdrawal agreement. We already have a legal obligation to comply with that agreement, which also has direct effect in domestic law in accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. These amendments are unnecessary and would call into question why they are not included in every other item of legislation across the statue book.
I turn to Amendments 18 and 19. Clause 4(4) allows the regulation-making power to make provision for those who are not exercising free movement rights at the end of the transition period. This group may nevertheless be eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme and are therefore still affected by the repeal of free movement. Clause 4 does not allow changes to the statute book for migrants from the rest of the world, who are not affected by the repeal of free movement. The suggested amendments are unnecessary and would add confusion and hinder our ability to make appropriate provision for those affected by that repeal.
It is right that Parliament should set the scope of the power in Clause 4 in terms appropriate to the purposes of this Bill in ending free movement and protecting the rights of Irish citizens. It is also right that Parliament should retain the appropriate oversight over the exercise of that power. The Government’s intention here is simply to ensure absolute clarity of purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned some issues that I have already addressed, namely comprehensive sickness insurance and the form versus the digital form. Article 18(1) explicitly provides that a document evidencing status may be in digital form. She also talked about children and the EU settlement scheme, specifically children whose parents—or indeed institutions in which they live—may not have signed them up. We will provide for reasonable excuses; I believe that we will come to that later in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, with her knowledge of pension provisions, for contributing to this debate. My noble friend said that I must have been prescient in tabling this amendment. I think it was more about a continuing, underlying, and rather generalised sense of anxiety—not about resiling from the withdrawal agreement, which had not struck me as a possibility until a few hours ago.
The Minister has given us some reassurance; I hope that I have heard correctly over the airwaves about the legal obligation to comply with the withdrawal agreement. I suppose that this does not mean there will not be an attempt to change that legal obligation in some way. Anyway, that is not for tonight and certainly not for after 10.15 pm. Probably the best I can do at this moment is to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12; I do so now.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this might be a convenient place to pause in our proceedings.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Monday 7th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 September 2020 - (3 Sep 2020)