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
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We are already working with our partners to take action to protect and enhance chalk streams, which are precious habitats. That includes reforming abstraction, improving water quality through the Environment Agency’s water industry national environment programme and legislating to support those measures. However, as I said at a roundtable that I ran this week with water companies, chalk streams are vital. We have to do something to look after them, and we will be hosting a conference on this on 16 October.
James Wild
I am grateful for that reply. Last year, water companies discharged sewage into our precious chalk streams and rivers in North West Norfolk and across the country 200,000 times. I welcome my hon. Friend’s efforts to tackle that unacceptable level. Will she instruct the Environment Agency to take more enforcement action, and will she commit that the new powers in the Environment Bill will be used to set tough, legally binding targets?
Rebecca Pow
We know that effective regulation is the key to preventing pollution from impacting on water quality. That is why a range of enforcement and sanction options are open to the Environment Agency, which we expect to be used wherever necessary. We also expect water companies to set out how they will manage sewerage discharges through drainage and wastewater management plans. However, I acknowledge that further action is necessary, particularly on sewage pollution and combined sewage outlets. I referenced that at the roundtable earlier this week, and more work will be going on.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Recognising that commodity supply chains are a major driver of deforestation, the Government established the global resource initiative taskforce. Following the taskforce’s recommendations, we are currently consulting on proposals for a new world-leading due diligence law and working to forge an international alliance on supply chains at COP26. UK international climate finance is also used to protect the world’s most biodiverse forests, with £5.8 billion committed between 2016 and 2021.
Ruth Edwards
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, and I welcome the Government’s consultation in this area. May I urge her to make our landmark Environment Bill even more world-leading by including legislative measures on due diligence?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for being on the ball about the Environment Bill in particular, which will be back before the House very soon and will deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth. We understand the eagerness about measures in relation to due diligence, but we do not want to anticipate the outcome of the consultation. Any decisions on the next steps on these measures will be confirmed in the Government’s formal response to the consultation, which will be published after the consultation closes on 5 October, but we are very positive about it.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We have a manifesto commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental, animal welfare and food standards. We have retained in law our existing standards of protection. We have laid before the House our negotiating objectives, stating that we will uphold those, and we most recently established the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
Seema Malhotra
Many of my constituents, including Nimmi Soni, have written to me with their concerns about the Government’s commitment to protecting food standards. The Secretary of State is right that his party’s manifesto promised not to compromise on food standards in trade deals, but twice—twice—the Government have refused to support Labour amendments to put that into law. If over 70% of people do not want us selling food imported from countries with lower food standards, and more than 1 million people have signed a National Farmers Union petition for British food standards to be put into law, why are the Government refusing to do what the public want and expect? The country has a right to know.
George Eustice
In retained EU law, we have indeed put in place the existing prohibitions on the sale of, for instance, poultry washed with chlorine and beef treated with hormones. We have legal prohibitions and our own legal bans on certain practices. Those remain in place and will not change.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday was Back British Farming Day, but while our farmers are at risk of being undercut in future trade deals, it will take more than just one day of wheatsheaf wearing to protect them. Will the Secretary of State support the amendment in the House of Lords to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on firmer footing, especially to offset the clear conflict of interest of Tony Abbott negotiating agricultural trade deals with Australia that could risk British farmers’ livelihoods further?
George Eustice
Tony Abbott is one of a number of people on the Board of Trade. Their role is to champion British exports overseas. They do not decide Government policy or the Government’s negotiating mandate; those negotiations are led by the Secretary of State for International Trade. We have set up a food and agriculture and trade standards commission. That has been done and it is already meeting. It does not need to be placed on a statutory footing.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Nancy Pelosi and several other American politicians have said that there will be no trade deal with the US if the UK reneges on treaties that it has signed up to, as the Government intend to do with the EU withdrawal agreement. Given that the UK Government dumped food standards from the Agriculture Bill to pursue a US deal that now appears dead, what options will the Secretary of State be looking at to restore those protections, and can we see guarantees on food standards for imports written into law?
George Eustice
There are a number of ways in which we secure standards on food imports. One is through the prohibitions on sale, as I have already mentioned, which include things such as poultry washed with chlorine or hormones in beef. There is the sanitary and phytosanitary chapter that exists in every trade deal that sets out our requirements for food safety and food standards of food coming in. Finally, of course, we use tariff policy to take account of certain practices in other countries.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
What advice has the Secretary of State asked for or been given about the liability of the UK Government for damages arising from their failure to ensure that our current standards are upheld in any future trade deal? Will the Government be prepared to compensate farmers and other food producers whose businesses suffer as a result? Will consumers whose health is affected similarly be entitled to compensation?
George Eustice
There will be no need for compensation as this Government will protect and uphold our food standards.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Food standards and geographical protections go hand in hand, and despite the Secretary of State’s earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), this Government are giving up on food standards and trade deals and are abandoning the EU’s protections on protected geographical indications. Those actions threaten Scotland’s high-quality produce, including whisky. What reassurances can he give to the whisky workers in my constituency that their industry will be protected, and will the Government do a welcome U-turn and seek to rejoin the EU’s protected geographical indication scheme?
George Eustice
We will not rejoin the EU’s scheme, but the withdrawal agreement makes provision in the area of protected food names and PGI s, and there will be recognition of the existing ones that have been set out. In addition, we will be establishing our own independent PGI and protected food name scheme to take new applications after we leave.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Measures to improve air quality are a key part of the Environment Bill, and we have engaged with stakeholders through the development of these measures to ensure that they are ambitious and impactful. We are confident that these measures, including the commitments to set two air quality targets, will deliver real benefits for air quality, and we will continue to engage and collaborate with stakeholders, parliamentarians and the public as we work to implement these measures.
Ruth Cadbury [V]
Until lockdown, air pollution blighted the life expectancy and health of many of my constituents and, as traffic levels are starting to rise again, we are seeing the same problems of air pollution arise. Will the Government commit to including the World Health Organisation’s guideline on air pollution limits in the Environment Bill, and will they also include particulate matter as well as nitrogen dioxide in the legally binding targets?
Rebecca Pow
As I have said, we have two air quality targets already in the Environment Bill and the WHO’s PM 2.5 is on there. We will consult on exactly how that will come through, which is absolutely right. All experts agree with that. The hon. Lady makes good points about coronavirus and the impact on air quality. The Air Quality Expert Group and others have done some very useful and significant research, which will be looked at in great detail to ensure that the right measures are coming forward.
Navendu Mishra
Local modelling has revealed that 21 locations across Stockport will have nitrogen oxide levels above the legal limit in 2021. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), I ask the Government to commit today to including nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter as legally binding targets in the Environment Bill.
Rebecca Pow
The Environment Bill has a big section on tackling air quality, with two targets to be set. Many other air pollutants—five in total—are also tackled, and we already have targets in place for them as part of the clean air strategy. We have a comprehensive strategy, because we appreciate just how serious the issue of air quality is. We as a Government will be tackling that, including with clean air zones across the country, many of which are coming forward in the near future.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her responses to my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), but may I press her further? According to Labour research, almost 60% of people in England are living in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year. That shocking statistic should jolt the Government into action. Will the Minister commit to incorporating World Health Organisation air-quality standards into the Environment Bill?
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the shadow Minister to her place. As I have said, the Bill contains two targets, and PM2.5 is one of them. We understand that that is the most significant and impactful pollutant of our health, but we must consult on this issue. I have met many experts and specialists in this area, and we must wait for the actual data before we can finally bring those measures into the Bill and ensure that we get this right. As I said, clean air zones are being introduced across the country to tackle this issue through our clean air strategy.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
May I point out to the food Minister, that contrary to what she might think—
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to thank Henry Dimbleby and his team for their work to examine our food system and the vital role it plays? We will consider their independent report carefully, and we expect the second part during the course of next year. The Government have undertaken to respond with a White Paper within six months.
Paul Maynard
My apologies, Mr Speaker; my excitement about this report knows no bounds, hence my enthusiasm. In my constituency, the Minister is now something of a folk heroine, thanks to this report. May I invite her to visit Blackpool and see how the recommendations on tackling holiday hunger will benefit the most deprived communities in the UK? Because we may be in a food desert, she might have to put up with a Greggs pasty for her lunch, but we will put on a good show for her none the less.
Victoria Prentis
Flattery will get my hon. Friend everywhere, and I would be delighted to visit his constituency, where I have fond memories of at least one family holiday as a child. A Greggs pasty will be just great.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Animal cruelty has no place in our society, which is why the Government are committed to increasing the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty from six months to five years. The Government are fully behind the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which will provide one of the toughest sentencing regimes in Europe.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Minister for her answer, but I have been really disturbed by recent reports in the local press regarding incidents of animal cruelty in my constituency. I certainly worry that individuals who are capable of deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on animals are capable of far worse. Will the Minster go a little further and give a guarantee that the maximum five-year sentence for the worst animal cruelty offences will be on the statute book by January 2021?
Victoria Prentis
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, and we are all keen to do what we can to stamp out animal cruelty. Unfortunately, I cannot give any guarantees about the progress of parliamentary business, but the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) who is currently in his place, will take place next month. The Government fully support the Bill and hope that it will become law very soon.
Bambos Charalambous
I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that we will have a five-year maximum sentence for animal cruelty. The RSPCA has estimated that there were more than 100,000 instances of animal cruelty during lockdown. That is a great concern, and we want to ensure that action is taken. Will the Minister confirm that there will be greater enforcement and steps towards prosecution, to ensure that those who commit animal cruelty are brought to justice?
Victoria Prentis
Enforcement is, of course, a matter for local police forces, but what we can do in this place is to make sure that the right laws are in place to give them the tools that they need to stamp out animal cruelty.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
There has been much laudable support for this and many good intentions, but since 2016, when we had the Select Committee report recommendation to bring in five-year maximum sentencing, each Government have decided they are going to do it and it is still not done. My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has put forward his Bill, so this is about making sure that the Government will support it and make time, in Government time, to get this through, because we must not prevaricate any longer. With a maximum six-month sentence, and only four months if someone pleads guilty, it is absolutely ridiculous that we cannot bring in stronger sentencing.
Victoria Prentis
The Chairman of the EFRA Committee and the Committee have done their bit through their important work in this area in producing the report in 2016. The Second Reading of the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) takes place next month, and I very much look forward to either attending the debate or following it very closely. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) by saying that the Government strongly support that private Member’s Bill and fully expect it to be adopted very soon.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Government are determined to help our farmers and food producers to increase sales domestically and internationally. We welcome efforts from all parts of the food chain to promote UK produce, including the promotional work done by groups like the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. We have recently co-funded a consumer-facing milk campaign. We continue to work with the AHDB and others on future promotional work.
Danny Kruger
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, which is very welcome indeed. Does he agree that food produced in other countries using techniques that drive up yield and drive down costs but are illegal here in the UK should be subject to import tariffs that make those techniques economically pointless?
George Eustice
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The use of tariff policy to protect producers and to safeguard against certain types of production is indeed a legitimate use of tariff policy, alongside other measures such as the sanitary and phytosanitary chapter that we are negotiating.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We have commissioned the national food strategy independent review. Other Government policies are addressing healthy food provision, including the tackling obesity strategy, healthy start vouchers and free school meals. Sustainable food production is absolutely at the heart of our future agriculture policy.
Ian Byrne
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Local welfare provision can be a lifeline for families on the brink of food poverty. That is why I warmly welcome the Department’s funding allocation of £63 million of emergency support back in July. I am growing increasingly concerned, however, that this funding is due to expire in October, at the same time that the furlough scheme is drawing to a close, food bank use is rocketing and we will be in the midst of a recession. What future funding will the Department allocate for local welfare provision?
George Eustice
We have put in place a number of interventions to help people struggling with food affordability, particularly in lockdown and its aftermath. We continue to keep all these policies under review. We have the free school meals voucher system that ran, as the hon. Gentleman says, over the summer, and there are other measures that we have been working on with local authorities.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We want farmers to get a fair price for their produce, and the Government are committed to tackling the contractual unfairness that exists in the agrifood supply chain. Through the Agriculture Bill, we are seeking to strengthen the position of farmers by improving transparency in the supply chain, and there are new powers in the Bill to introduce statutory codes of contractual practice.
Chris Loder
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but the supermarket Sainsbury’s is threatening to tear up the contracts of small dairy farmers in West Dorset that supply it with milk if they refuse to sell it a percentage of their calves. Does he agree that Sainsbury’s is abusing its dominant position, and will he support me in defending small farmers across the country from these predatory supermarkets?
George Eustice
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue in more detail. We now have in place the groceries code adjudicator, which regulates the types of contracts that supermarkets can put in place and precludes certain practices, but through the Agriculture Bill, we can go further and stipulate further requirements in contracts in future.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This Government are investing a record £5.2 billion to deliver around 2,000 new flood defence projects to better protect 336,000 properties in England by 2027. Up to £170 million is also being invested to accelerate work on flood defence schemes that will soon begin construction, and I am very pleased to say that, largely thanks to my hon. Friend’s great campaigning efforts from the Back Benches, Tenbury Wells will receive £4.9 million in economic recovery grant to enable the completion of the scheme she has been championing and to better protect 570 jobs, 80 businesses and 82 properties.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Minister personally and the Secretary of State for all they did to ensure that funding will deliver a scheme for Tenbury Wells. May I ask her to encourage from the Dispatch Box the Environment Agency to crack on and get a socially distanced consultation under way on its preferred design?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend very much for that and for all the work that she has done. Now that the money is there, she is itching to get on with the project. The Environment Agency has worked proactively to develop safe ways to work during the pandemic, and I am reliably informed that it will start a public consultation on the Tenbury flood risk management scheme this autumn. It will use socially distanced and virtual engagement methods that are covid-secure to ensure that it engages as widely as possible.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
People in South Yorkshire are still waiting for the Prime Minister’s flood summit, which was promised last November, four months before the covid-19 lockdown in the UK. This is the second time I have asked the Secretary of State to explain the delay. Will he apologise and commit now to a date for the long overdue summit?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. This issue has been raised a number of times. I have had many Zoom calls with Members from the area over the lockdown, and the difficulty with having the project has been that we have been in lockdown, but we have made major flood announcements, with £5.2 billion of funding. Many of the Yorkshire areas have benefited, but of course, if there are further conversations that the shadow Minister would like to have, we would be happy to have them.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
This country has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We have modernised standards for dog breeding, changed the way we do pet sales, brought in a world-leading ivory ban and introduced mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses. We are going further, as we said we would in our manifesto, to end excessively long journeys for farm animals, to ban primates as pets and to ban imports from trophy hunting.
Tom Randall
I thank the Minister for that answer, which will reassure the many Gedling residents who write to me on animal welfare issues. As our manifesto made clear, leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to enhance standards, not reduce them. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that we should perhaps stop playing party politics on this issue and get behind the many initiatives that the Government have introduced to promote high animal welfare standards and increased protection for animals in homes, farms and the wild?
Victoria Prentis
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of interest across this House and, indeed, among our constituents in issues concerning animal welfare. The UK is a leader when it comes to matters of animal welfare, but there is always more that we can and will do.
Fiona Bruce
My family enjoys quality food bought directly from farms across my constituency, such as Ibbotsons in Sandbach, Glebe Farm in Astbury, Hall Farm shop in Alsager, the Cheshire Egg Co.’s dispenser at Pace’s farm and daily fresh Bidlea milk from Twemlow. What more can the Government do to help those and other rural businesses in my constituency to promote their high-quality local produce?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the delicious food—from lovely meat to the famous Cheshire cheese—that is undoubtedly available in her constituency. We are supporting initiatives to promote local produce, including through recent industry-led marketing campaigns. We will always champion our farmers and producers to grow more of our great British food.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The Fisheries Bill, which is currently in Committee and on which I will be spending the rest of the day, sets out a legally binding framework, including fisheries management plans, which will help to protect and recover stocks; to support a thriving, sustainable fishing industry; and, we hope, to safeguard the environment.
John Lamont
Sustainability means that coastal communities around the UK, such as Eyemouth in my constituency, can continue to fish for generations to come. When renegotiating access to UK waters, how will the Minister ensure that all boats comply with our rules and that our marine life is protected from overfishing?
Victoria Prentis
In future, all vessels, both from the UK and elsewhere, will be subject to licence conditions set by the UK sea fisheries authorities. The conditions will set out the areas that can be fished, species that can be caught and types of gear that can be used when fishing in UK waters. Marine enforcement officers from all the fisheries administrations have the powers to inspect vessels and ensure that they comply with our rules.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
As we approach the end of the transition period, DEFRA’s primary focus will be on putting in place all the necessary legislation for January, working with industry to ensure that we are ready for change, and putting in place the necessary capacity to enable us to deliver a smooth transition to becoming an independent country.
Andrew Griffith
What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing ahead of the upcoming winter to improve the fluvial transport capacity of the Rivers Arun and Adur, which is of great concern to farmers in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs?
George Eustice
The Environment Agency has completed capital schemes to reduce flood risk at Shoreham, Littlehampton and Arundel. Three maintenance projects on the Arun are due to be completed before winter, on the River Stor and at Greatham and Hardham.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Seventy-nine per cent. of the climate citizens’ assembly agreed that economic recovery after covid must be designed to help to drive net zero, including through greater reliance on local food production and healthier diets. Will the Secretary of State commit his Department to review those findings and act on them?
George Eustice
We are already running our own reviews in those policy areas through the national food strategy, which is run by Henry Dimbleby. Indeed, the powers in the Agriculture Bill give us precisely the ability to support local projects.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
George Eustice
The Government recognise that sugar beet growers face yield losses this year because of the difficulties in controlling aphids. We support the restrictions on neonicotinoids to protect pollinators, but we have always been clear that we remain open to applications for emergency authorisations under the current rules.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
George Eustice
We are always open to recommendations, suggestions and proposals from people in all walks of life, whether they are on any type of formal committee or not. The point I was making was that we have our own national food strategy, which is itself running a large engagement process to engage people in many of these ideas. We will of course consider those ideas as we put together future policy.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues. But since 2010, the Government have invested £181 million in flood defences in Lancashire to better protect about 37,000 homes, and over the next two years the Government plan to invest a further £21.6 million to support inland fluvial and coastal defence schemes, and better protect nearly 5,000 homes.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
George Eustice
We work closely with FareShare, as we always have. As the hon. Gentleman points out, we did make available some additional funding to help it to support the financially vulnerable during this pandemic. Obviously, as we go into winter we keep all these matters under review.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In our response to the Godfrey review, we set out our approach to dealing with bovine tuberculosis in the next five years. In response to the specific question, we look at epidemiological assessments in individual areas to see where particular strains are present in both badgers and cattle, and that drives the decisions about where culling is necessary.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
George Eustice
As the Minister said earlier, we have a consultation out at the moment, and people will no doubt respond to it. But the evidence we have is that actually many of these countries do have laws in place and the issue is a failure to enforce those laws, and that is why we have consulted on that basis.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
George Eustice
I fundamentally disagree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It was indeed against the interests of the fishing industry, right across the UK, to join the European Union and the common fisheries policy, which has meant that we have access to only half the fish in our own waters. Leaving the EU means that we can rectify that and get a fair deal for fishermen in every part of the UK, which is why the Scottish industry strongly supports the approach of the British Government.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) (V)
Following the outbreak of covid among staff of Banham Poultry, in my constituency, more than three weeks ago, the company has had to shut down its plants, and slaughter or sell millions of pounds-worth of its chickens to competitors for pennies, without the compensation it would normally receive for culling in relation to animal health, incurring losses of about £2 million a week. The two family shareholders have made it clear that that is unsustainable without any signal of Government support or progress towards reopening. Given that the company received no help earlier in the year through covid interruption schemes or furloughing, because it was rightly deemed a strategic food business, and has had no compensation for culling, can my right hon. Friend give some signal today, before the company’s emergency general meeting tomorrow, that the talks with Government in the past fortnight will lead to some financial support, to avoid the loss of an historic business and local economic devastation?
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I had a meeting with my officials yesterday to discuss the case. We understand the difficulties that Banham Poultry is facing, and I know that our officials are in constant dialogue with the company, as are officials in other Departments, including Public Health England and the Treasury.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
George Eustice
The WWF report is a wake-up call for everybody around the world. At the heart of every piece of policy in DEFRA is the intention to build back nature, including through our agriculture policy, where we are encouraging sustainable agriculture; through the new targets and governance framework in the Environment Bill; through our approach to sustainable fisheries; and through our work on due diligence in the supply chain. This is a crucial time, and the UK is a world leader here. We have COP26 and the convention on biodiversity, which we will be involved with next year, and we will be championing the environment in all those international forums.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)
There have not been discussions of that nature with the sponsor body, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the recent exchange of correspondence on the restoration and renewal review, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the right hon. Member for his candid reply. Stakeholders in York expended time, energy and money on the House of Lords proposals the Prime Minister announced in January, so to learn today that the Prime Minister did not engage in due process is, quite frankly, shocking; it just shows his populist virtue signalling to my city and the north. Will the right hon. Member communicate to No. 10 that, if the Prime Minister is going to put forward proposals, he must go through due process before wasting time in places like my city, where people desperately needed the jobs that he was proposing?
Damian Hinds
I think the hon. Lady might have inferred something from my answer that was not actually there. To be absolutely clear, the sponsor body of the restoration and renewal programme works within the remit provided by Parliament and is currently conducting a review, looking at a range of options to make sure that we get continued, uninterrupted and sound operation of this place and secure value for money for the British public.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
This is a timely question from my hon. Friend, on World Suicide Prevention Day. The Church’s healthcare chaplains work in both acute and community mental health services. The diocese of Manchester provides mental health wellbeing youth workers, to provide mental health first aid, and the parish of Goudhurst in Kilndown in Kent provides subsidised mental health counselling in 13 schools.
James Sunderland
Given the current crisis and the inability of young people to meet, what impact is covid-19 having on the young persons working for the Church in that good work?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend raises an important point. His own diocese, the diocese of Oxford, reports that connection with young people has been greatly reduced throughout lockdown. With the new measures to suppress the virus coming in on Monday, churches can hold services tailored to young people, as many already do, and church youth groups can continue to meet in multiple groups of six or fewer. I hope that churches will consider those options to increase the number of young people involved with the life of the Church.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The commission is working to ensure that the elections in England, Scotland and Wales next May can be delivered safely and effectively. This includes close collaboration with the UK Government, public health officials, returning officers and political parties, and it is also closely monitoring comparable international elections taking place during the pandemic to see what may be learned from others’ experiences. In collaboration with the UK’s electoral co-ordination and advisory board, it is now working on additional guidance and resources for those administering May’s elections to address the specific challenges of managing the polls in a covid-19 secure way.
Owen Thompson
Throughout the pandemic, people are accessing news and public affairs online more than ever. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this highlights more than ever the need for increased investigatory and sanctioning powers for the Electoral Commission, as has been passed in Scotland in the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, rather than the public attacks on it from Government Members?
Christian Matheson
It is true that electoral law as it stands predates much of what we now have from the internet, in terms of the way that information can be found. Any changes to those laws will be a matter for the House, but I am sure that the Electoral Commission will use its experience to give us advice on how those changes might be brought forward.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) [V]
The National Audit Office produced an important report in June, examining the Ministry of Defence’s management of carrier strike and how it is addressing the risks involved in achieving the full capabilities of the carrier strike group. My hon. Friend will know that the Public Accounts Commission approves the strategy and the budget for the NAO but does not involve itself in specific reports due to the statutory independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but we are interested to see that the work of the National Audit Office does meet Parliament’s needs.
Mr Hollobone
The Crowsnest radar system is 18 months late. The three crucial new support ships will not be ready until the end of the decade. Only 48 of the 138 Lightning jets have been ordered, and the MOD has no idea about the lifetime costs of this programme. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny of the National Audit Office’s superb report, so that the MOD’s handling of this programme can be comprehensively examined?
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend raises the question of the progress, or lack of progress, made around issues such as the radar system and developing the support ships required. He will be pleased to know that the Public Accounts Committee recently announced formally that it will take evidence on the carrier strike report from the National Audit Office during the month of September.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The Electoral Commission’s independence is established in statute. It is a public body independent of Government and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which I represent here today. Its independence is a vital part of ensuring that it is able to deliver the vital functions allocated to it by Parliament. The Speaker’s Committee seeks to uphold that independence when it fulfils its statutory functions in reviewing the Commission’s estimates and plans and overseeing the appointment of electoral commissioners.
Mr Bone [V]
I thank the hon. Member for that response, but will he tell me whether he agrees with the eminent QC, Timothy Straker, that the Electoral Commission has made “gross errors”; that it
“always has its own interest to protect”;
that in legal terms, it had committed
“a gross error which would not have been committed by a first year law student”;
and that it should be stripped of its existing enforcement powers? Or does he just agree with me that it is time to scrap the Electoral Commission?
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman has always made his views in the House very clear on this matter, for which I am always grateful. I have seen the reports of Mr Straker’s comments, which have been made to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and we await its report on the evidence from Mr Straker and others coming to it. The commission’s record of having had about 500 adjudications, only five of which have been challenged, and only one of which has been upheld in the courts, is a record that I think the commission can be proud of.
Kevin Brennan
Ironically, I have come in to the House today in the middle of a training programme that I am doing with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on electoral monitoring. Of course, it is a feature of any proper democratic system that there is an independent electoral commission, and it is a feature of corrupt countries that they seek to undermine the work of independent electoral commissions. The remarks by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—I wonder whether the committee would agree—are typical of those who do not wish there to be an independent Electoral Commission, because the Electoral Commission found out that the activities of Vote Leave were illegal and fined it £61,000 as a result. That is the reason for these attacks.
Christian Matheson
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity of his position. The commission will continue to undertake its role independently, as decided in statute by this House. I would say respectfully to those hon. Members who seek to replace or abolish the commission that it might be helpful to bring forward proposals as to what they would replace it with so that we have some clarity about possible alternatives.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)
Setting a strategy for the House of Commons service is a responsibility of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended by the House of Commons Commission Act 2015, which states:
“The Commission must from time to time set strategic priorities and objectives in connection with services provided by the House Departments.”
As with many of its functions, the Commission delegates preparation of the draft House service strategy to the Commons Executive Board. The present strategy for the House of Commons service was considered by the then Administration and Finance Committees and agreed by the then Commission in 2019.
Mrs Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very full answer. I think it is clear that the strategy running the House of Commons has, perhaps unintentionally, diluted the focus of those we charge with running this place and, I believe, is at risk of adversely affecting both our culture and our ethos here. This is a serious place of business, now more than ever—we are putting in place laws for the future of our communities and our country—not a hospitality or a tourism venue. Will the Commission take this opportunity of a pause in business as usual completely to rethink the focus of its strategy and, importantly, look at how we embed the culture and ethos so important to the running of this place?
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Lady raises a number of very important issues that are at the heart of the consideration of the current House of Commons Commission. Can I just say to her that there is no impediment at all to Members bringing forward suggestions on how the House strategy is designed and improved? We would encourage Members to come forward to the House of Commons Commission to share their thoughts if they believe that improvements can be made. More engagement from Members is always a good thing, and their advice and input are key to making sure we get the services we need. We know Members are always busy, and the administration is working in new ways to engage Members in tailoring services for the House, and we now have a new head of Member engagement and a new customer services director. Any changes to the House of Commons Commission, as the right hon. Lady does know herself, would be a matter for this House.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The committee has received no representations regarding the media reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, which relate to a submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That committee is undertaking an important review of electoral finance regulation, and the commission looks forward to engaging with the conclusions of its work in due course. The Electoral Commission is established by statute, and any changes to its constitution would be a matter for Parliament, not the Speaker’s Committee.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his answer. Would he agree with me that, while we can probably all think of occasions where we disliked adjudications from the commission, the fact that the Government—or the governing party—clearly want to be rid of it is an indication that probably, as an independent body, it is doing rather a good job?
Christian Matheson
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the figures I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). The track record of the Electoral Commission is one in which over 500 adjudications have been made, five have been challenged in court and only one of those challenges has been upheld. So far as that works out, I think that record stands on its own two feet.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Church schools have taken a lead in getting children back to school, and many of the Church of England’s 33,000 social action projects have adapted and expanded—for example, in the provision of food, especially to those who are vulnerable and shielding. In my hon. Friend’s diocese of Salisbury, £1.27 million has been spent on the Renewing Hope project to support ministry and mission in rural communities, and Salisbury cathedral is one of 12 to benefit from the £900,000 the commissioners have spent supporting heritage crafts.
Danny Kruger
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is incredibly encouraging to hear all of that. Does he agree with me that faith communities, the Church and other faith groups have a huge contribution to make to national recovery and to the future of our society, but that to realise this potential we need public servants at all levels of national and local government and in public services to overcome certain prejudices or suspicions they have about working with faith groups, and what does he think the Government can do to encourage this?
Andrew Selous
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this point, because he is absolutely right. The Government need to combat religious illiteracy by making the case that the public square should never be purely secular, as secular humanism is itself a belief system and such an approach would be illiberal.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Some 1,000 Church of England parishes are directly involved in debt advice, sometimes working with debt counselling organisations such as Christians Against Poverty. In my hon. Friend’s county of Leicestershire, the diocese of Leicester chairs the Fair Finance Group, which tackles financial exclusion, working with local councils, the Department for Work and Pensions and credit unions.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, because financial difficulty is a really difficult problem. I was lucky enough to visit St John’s in Hinckley, at the request of the Rev. Gary Weston, where he showed me their food bank and the food parcels that they deliver to provide support locally. One of the questions that he wanted me to ask today was about better joining up with local government and raising awareness of what churches can do, because they can respond very quickly to provide support for local people in need. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that that can happen?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which leads on directly from the previous question from our hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and he is absolutely right to raise it. I am very aware of the good work of St John’s in Hinckley. He might know that it is benefiting from £800,000 of further investment in mission and ministry, provided by the Church’s strategic development funding. Churches such as St John’s have been quietly getting on with essential work in the community, as is happening up and down the country, and I am hugely grateful to all of them. He is absolutely right; they need to work hand in hand with local authorities, and local authorities need to be aware of what churches are doing in their areas.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. I know that he, like me, celebrates the fact that now more people than ever have been taking part in church services during lockdown. The Church will continue to support good online worship, incorporating the best of the changes from lockdown with the best of what came before.
Steve Double
Since the beginning of the pandemic, churches have been conducting services in a variety of ways. I am thinking in particular of the open-air services held by Wave House church in Newquay and the Anchor church in Fowey—in Cornwall we do like a church with a maritime themed name. Other churches have been holding services online. A recent Tearfund survey found that as many as one in four adults in the UK has listened to or watched a religious service during the lockdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we come out of the pandemic, it is important that churches continue to innovate and adapt, in order to engage with people in a variety of ways?
Andrew Selous
Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I am grateful to him for alerting the House to Tearfund’s research, which found that one in four people in the UK has listened to or watched a religious service over the lockdown, and I am particularly pleased to learn of the initiatives in the two local churches that he mentioned. He will be pleased to know that the diocese of London, for example, has led large outdoor services, and in the diocese of Norwich, in a large-scale drive-in service, hymns and preaching were beamed directly to car radios through a dedicated FM channel.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)
On current plans, the proposed approach to the works and the funding would be put to both Houses for agreement in 2022. This is subject to the outcome of the strategic review, which is due to conclude in the autumn.
Chris Bryant
Oh dear! It is eight years since one report said that we had “a looming crisis” in this building, and four years since a Joint Committee of both Houses produced a report, on 8 September 2016, which stated that we were facing “an impending crisis.” Since then we have had years and years of more new problems in the building than we are able to cope with. There is no sense of urgency about this crisis. Get on with it, for heaven’s sake.
Damian Hinds
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there really is a sense of urgency. Of course, he was a distinguished member of the Joint Committee, and he is right about the risk of fire, flood and falling masonry in this building. Progress has of course been made, but a lot has happened in the five years since the original proposals and it is therefore right that we have a review, which is proceeding at some pace, with quite an aggressive timetable, and will report in October.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Chief Whip and Deputy Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Stuart Andrew)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. A member of the Leader of the House’s household is awaiting a covid test result after having been symptomatic. The Leader of the House is therefore self-isolating along with his family, so I have had the good fortune—yeah, right—to be asked to reply. The business for next week will include:
Monday 14 September—Second reading of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
Tuesday 15 September—Consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (Day 1).
Wednesday 16 September—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (Day 2).
Thursday 17 September—Debate on a motion on the coronavirus job retention scheme followed by, general debate on support for the self-employed and freelance workers during the coronavirus crisis. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 September—The House will not be sitting.
The Provisional Business for the week commencing 21 September will include:
Monday 21 September—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (Day 3).
Tuesday 22 September—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (Day 4).
Wednesday 23 September—Second reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.
Thursday 24 September—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 September—Private Members Bills.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the forthcoming business. Of course we all wish the Leader of the House and the whole Rees-Mogg family well. We know that it had to be something very serious for him not to be here.
I am disappointed that, since last week, there is no legislation to protect renters. It is not in the business statement, so can I make a further plea on this, because the protection runs out on 20 September? We may well have unemployment chaos, but we do not want a homelessness crisis too.
All I asked for last week was a debate on the border in the Irish sea, but then we got the UK Internal Market Bill. It is so controversial that the most senior Government lawyer has resigned, possibly because a Minister said in the House that it would be a breach of international law, and now the shadow Counsel General in the Senedd has also resigned. The Treasury Solicitor is there to advise on the law—I know, because I used to work there—and he has a duty to the court to uphold the rule of law. Roland Phillips, a senior Government lawyer, produced a document called “Judge over your shoulder”, and that is what we have to do: advise to avoid being in breach of administrative law and the rule of law. It is not an op-ed from Government lawyers; it is legal advice. But now everyone who breaks the law made here in Parliament can say, “Sorry, your honour, I only broke it in just a small but specific way.” To use Lord Denning’s phrase, when he quoted Thomas Fuller:
“Be ye never so high, the law is above you.”
He said that to the then Attorney General. We all swear to uphold the law. Will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that the legal advice of the Treasury Solicitor is published or that a statement is made to the House on the legal implications?
This is clearly not the Government of law and order, because this time last year it was an unlawful Prorogation and this year they are breaking the law. I dread to think what is going to happen next year. One way to describe them is ICU—incompetent, chaotic and useless, whether on testing generally or for care homes specifically, because the Department of Health and Social Care has had to say this:
“We apologise unreservedly to all care homes who have been affected”.
One care home manager said:
“It’s like Russian roulette, people can be positive working for a week and no one knows.”
May we have a statement on how many processing lab centres there are? Every single university and technical college that has a lab should be pressed into service to do the tests for us locally in the UK.
Mr Speaker, you are right to say that the House is important, but there is a chaotic message. One day it is to Nick Ferrari and the next day it is to Robert Peston. That is not how Parliament works. Yesterday it was announced from a lectern that we are going reduce social gatherings from 30 people to six. Well, that’s the Cabinet sorted!
Will the Deputy Leader of the House please find time for a debate on the Procedure Committee report, which was published this morning? I have not had time to read the whole thing, but it stated in the summary:
“In any event, if lockdown conditions are reimposed in a way which prevents substantial numbers of Members from travelling to Westminster, the House ought to consider reverting to remote voting.”
The UK Internal Market Bill has huge implications for the devolved authorities, so in order that hon. Members can take part in the debate, will the Deputy Leader of the House allow them to take part remotely? Yesterday, the queues were far too long; hon. and right hon. Members were queuing in Portcullis House. As I said before, the Ayes and Noes should be separated. The hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) said that maybe we should have four electronic readers. I know that when I pressed one, it was not in service. This is exactly what we are telling people not to do, yet we are doing it here. There are so many pinch points where we are really close to each other.
The Deputy Leader of the House will know that I constantly raise the issue of Nazanin, and despite the Defence Secretary’s helpful comments last week, she is now going to be put on trial on Sunday. She has diplomatic protection, so will the hon. Gentleman make representations to ensure that someone from the British embassy is present for her trial? She should have been released in March, and she is the only one not to have been granted clemency. Also, her tag needs to be extended so that she can go to hospital. Anousheh and Nazanin are being punished for being with their Iranian families. Could he also ensure that arrangements are made for their families in Britain to meet the Iranian Foreign Minister, who will be in the UK next week? And let us not forget Luke Symons in Yemen either.
Finally, I want to remember Martin O’Neill, who passed away on 27 August. He served the Labour party and this House incredibly well—28 years here, 15 years in the other place—and of course was a director of Hibernian FC. He was a true public servant. May he rest in peace.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments about the Leader of the House and his family—I am sure he will also be grateful for them—and I thank her for the welcome she has given me. I fear I will not be anywhere near as articulate or knowledgeable as my right hon. Friend, and I certainly will not know what happened in 1678 or 1824, or whatever quotes I am sure will come from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
The right hon. Lady mentioned renters. As she rightly points out, we have had a scheme in place up to September that has been running for six months. There is a balancing act between renters, and making sure they are secure, and people who are renting out their properties, some of whom are also struggling. The Government will look at this very carefully.
The right hon. Lady said she asked last week for a debate on the border down the Irish sea. I am glad that the Government have been as effective as usual in delivering that debate. We have five days of debate coming up over the next two weeks, which I am sure she will be pleased about. She will know that the Government do not publish legal advice.
Stuart Andrew
I would be interested to know how many times Labour did when she was in the office. There are five days of debate, so Members will be able to debate all these issues extensively and put these questions. I am glad the House will have the opportunity to do that.
The right hon. Lady rightly points out the issue in care homes. I and the Government are grateful to all those who have worked in the sector during this incredibly difficult time, and we have ensured that lots of tests have been sent to those homes, but of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be making a statement to the House immediately after business questions.
On making statements to the House, it is absolutely right that Ministers should come to the House—it is part of the ministerial code—and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reinforces that message each and every time to my colleagues in government.
The right hon. Lady is right to mention the Procedure Committee report. I actually think the hybrid system has been working extremely well, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is currently looking at that report and will come back to the House in due course.
I also want to pay tribute to Martin O’Neill: 28 years in the House is an incredible length of service, and I know that he was highly respected on both sides of the House.
Finally, the right hon. Lady was right to raise the issue of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is indefensible and unacceptable that Iran is bringing new charges, and of course we constantly raise the matter with officials over in Tehran. She made the interesting point about the families meeting the Foreign Minister when he is here. I will certainly make sure that that request is put to the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Like many others in the House, I have campaigned long and hard on the unfair treatment of those suffering under the loan charge—including many in my constituency and around—and I know that the issue unites the House. HMRC has historically behaved appallingly with regard to those people, including by the retrospective nature of what it has done, but now it appears that those facing these issues have been asked essentially to put their representations in to HMRC before September—this month. The problem is that HMRC is not capable of processing all those representations now, which means that many of them will not get any justice or any help and assistance and may suffer even further financial penalties. My concern is that HMRC and the Government need to add extra months—six months more would help enormously—and I therefore make that representation, if he could pass it on to the Treasury.
Furthermore, I think it is time for us to have another debate in Government time on the process. It is vital, for our constituents to have any sense that this place represents them, for us to show that HMRC has behaved badly, leaving many of our constituents in deep financial difficulty, in depression and with some having even committed suicide.
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to express the strength of feeling that many people in all parts of this House feel about the issue. I will of course pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. There has been extensive debate about this in the House, and we had long debates about it in the Finance Bill, of course, but it may be an opportune moment to make an application to the Backbench Business Committee, which hopefully could provide time for further discussion.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I also wish the Leader of the House and his family well. I can hardly hide my disappointment at his absence. After five long months of my absence from this Chamber and the sometimes problematic communication through the virtual proceedings, I have been looking forward to being patronised in the flesh, rather than over the internet.
To be serious, coming back here, I have been able to see at first hand, with my own eyes, the procedures that have been implemented in the House as regards the covid epidemic. I pay tribute to the staff and management of the building for what they have done. Just one thing seems incongruous, and that is the way in which we continue to vote in Divisions of this Chamber.
That brings me to the report of the Procedure Committee published this morning, which recommends, having considered the matter in great detail, that we should return to the electronic remote voting system we had at the beginning of the pandemic. That was not only efficient and secure but, most importantly, is safe and does not require Members to be in close proximity to each other. I therefore ask the Government, will they respond to that report before the beginning of November, when the current procedures run out? I think they should do so as a matter of urgency.
Secondly, I raise the question of the so-called internal market Bill, which will dominate our proceedings over the next couple of weeks. We should be explicit that the Bill represents the most concerted and full-frontal assault on the devolution settlement in the United Kingdom that there has ever been. Under the guise of securing common standards, there will in effect be a race to the bottom and a lowest common denominator approach to consumer and environmental protection. It is completely unacceptable.
To crown it all, clause 46 of that Bill makes provision for this Chamber—not the Scottish Parliament—to determine spending priorities on matters that are devolved. Pet projects of the UK Cabinet could therefore trump the wishes of the Scottish people when it comes to spending. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with this legislation without the consent of the devolved Administrations? If it is, what is the point of those devolved Administrations in the first place?
The Government are insulting the concept of devolution. This will be a better recruiting sergeant for the cause of political independence for Scotland that anyone on the SNP Benches could ever be, so I caution the Government to be wary of that. I am out of time, Mr Speaker, so I will reserve my other points for my next appearance.
Stuart Andrew
It did not take long for me to disappoint someone, did it? However, it is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman’s cheerful face in public and live.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the Procedure Committee. Let us be frank: we are not in the full lockdown position that we were in when remote voting was taking place. Remote voting also had its issues, with Members of this House having issues connecting. I can honestly say to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) that, as Whip, I know full well how hard it was to get some of my flock connected to the system. The system we have is working as best it can in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman then came on to the issue of the internal market Bill—again, SNP Members cannot help themselves but peddle the myth that we are having a race to the bottom. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to take this opportunity, as an independent sovereign country, to go around the globe seeking the best trade deals that we can get. As for this constant gripe about a power grab, there are 70 competences coming from Brussels back to the United Kingdom, many of which will go to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. This is not a power grab. If anything, it is a power surge for the devolved Administrations. I would like to confirm that we will, of course, be seeking legislative consent from the devolved legislatures and will continue to work closely with them to understand and respond to any concerns that they have.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In my capacity as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on freeports, I welcome recent reports that an early designation of freeports is likely, perhaps as early as the Budget. It would be helpful if those that are submitting bids, such as Immingham in my constituency, had a clear idea of the timeframe and when an announcement is likely to be made. Could we have a statement from the Secretary of State outlining the position?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituency, and I know that he will do everything we can to ensure that his constituency is at the top of the list. I will, of course, ensure that his question is put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I will come back to him as soon as possible.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the acting Leader of the House to his place. I very much welcome the announcement of Backbench Business debates next Thursday and the following Thursday, which will help us to eat into our significant waiting list of unaired debates.
Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House the testing capacity in Gateshead. At a time when there is a significant increase in coronavirus cases, my local authority has seen a significant reduction in local testing capacity, and it also tells me that it is being asked to pick up more and more of the work on contact tracing. Have the Government given any thought to how that will be resourced, and when will our local testing capacity be restored? We really need that capacity to deal with the increasing number of cases in Gateshead.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am delighted that we have been able to find more time to catch up with the Backbench Business slots that are available in the Chamber. Because we have had disruption over previous months, it has been important to get the legislative processes back in place as quickly as possible, but I am glad that we are starting to see more and more other aspects such as Backbench Business debates, with Westminster Hall hopefully opening in October.
The hon. Gentleman talks about local testing, which I know is a big issue. It is a fact that we have one of the best testing rates in the world, equivalent to one test for every five people in the country, and we are outpacing countries such as Germany, Spain and Italy. It is inevitable that there may be some problems; I accept that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be making a statement immediately after this, in which I am sure he will update the House on the progress that has been made.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Kensington, I feel passionately that we need to get fire and building safety laws on to the statute book as quickly as possible. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are fully committed to implementing the first phase recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry and are doing everything to get that legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible?
Stuart Andrew
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Ever since she arrived in this House, I have seen her passionately fighting for her constituency on that issue. It is a very important issue, and she is right that we are determined to do this, but there is a process and a sequencing that we have to go through. I have seen some of the personal abuse that she has received, which is totally unacceptable. She is fighting as hard as she can for the victims who suffered that awful tragedy, and I know that she will not let that abuse stop her carrying on her great work.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. I know that Members across the House will wish to mark that and thoughtfully share messages on their social media. Self-harm is, sadly, a strong predictor of future suicide. The all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention has been conducting an inquiry, and on 23 September we will be holding our virtual launch of the report to see how we can reduce and prevent self-harm in young people. May we have a debate in Government time to look at the recommendations of the report and to find how we can reduce the risk of suicide?
Stuart Andrew
The all-party group should be congratulated on the work that it does. Suicide prevention is incredibly important. I think I have said in the House before that one of my friends killed himself when I was at school. It is something you never really get over. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there are early indications that we need to look at. This would be a perfect topic that the Backbench Business Committee might want to consider for a debate, because I am sure many Members would want to take part.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on the restoration of the Sessional Orders preventing demonstrations outside the Palace of Westminster? Returning here last Tuesday, I thought I was entering the Glastonbury festival, which I thought had been cancelled. To allow the noise, the disruption and the cost of policing is absolutely ridiculous, so can we please restore these orders so that we no longer have demonstrations on a busy roundabout sandwiched between Westminster Abbey and the Palace of Westminster?
Stuart Andrew
Of course we all want to protect the right to protest, and that should be done, but equally we need to be able to do our job here in Parliament. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s question is put before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, opening a medically supervised drug consumption room would break the law in a very specific and limited way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that saving the lives of vulnerable people and reducing the harm and antisocial behaviour associated with drug injection would be a very good reason to break a flawed and outdated law?
Stuart Andrew
I have heard the hon. Lady raise this issue on a number of occasions. This is a very, very difficult area that we have to be very careful with. I know that she has raised it with the various Departments, and there will be further opportunities for her to do so. Perhaps she will want to have an Adjournment debate to raise it in more detail.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I was going to ask my hon. Friend a question about Alfred the Great, but I discovered that he does not go back before 1600, so it will have to wait. He is fully aware that Somerset County Council is trying to make a bid to become a single unitary council: it calls it, believe or not, “One Somerset”, but that does not add up. For a start, the county council covers only part of Somerset. Its plan should be called “One Chunk of Somerset”. I am afraid it is a joke. Please can we debate the common-sense answer? Let us restore Somerset to its old boundaries before we change everything, and let us look at some of the real alternatives like the excellent plan put forward by the district councils, which is not only intelligent but makes sense.
Stuart Andrew
It is almost as though a call for independence in the south-west is going on, but I know that as a strong Unionist my hon. Friend would not be calling for that. The White Paper will be available soon. That will present him with the chance to put forward his views loud and clear, but he may wish to seek an Adjournment debate if he has the opportunity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I pass my best wishes to the Deputy Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber today.
I get regular contact from Pakistan about issues that are very, very important. Bishop Nadeem contacted me with media reports outlining how, on 7 June 2020, a mob reportedly attacked Christians in the village of Mazang Nowabad Sharaqpur, in the Punjab province in Pakistan. The mob were said to have come with assault rifles and clubs. They damaged houses, desecrated the local church and snatched goods and livestock. A total of 88 Christians, including women and children, were forcibly displaced from the village in which they had been living for generations. Will the Deputy Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this very important matter?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, raises a very important point. The events that he describes are extremely distressing to hear. We are deeply concerned to hear about the scale and severity of violations, not just in the example that he gives but in other places around the world. I know that the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief will be overseeing the implementation of the recommendations from the Bishop of Truro and will be making sure that all Ministers are aware of them.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Clause 98 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 provides that, so far as it is practicable, a Minister must arrange for a motion to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons within seven days of the end of each six-month period of review. Will my hon. Friend update the House on plans to put such a motion before the House?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises a very important point and I agree that it is of utmost importance that Parliament is able to scrutinise Government legislation properly. That, of course, is a statutory commitment that has been made and further announcements regarding the debate will be made in the usual way.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Many children from my constituency of Bristol East attend Broadlands Academy, which is in the constituency of the Leader of the House. This week, 70 pupils there have been denied their right to education because of minor infringements of uniform policy—for example, a logo missing because the shop simply did not have those items in stock, or shoes that could not be polished. I suspect that the Leader of the House thinks that every child should turn out every day as if they are on their way to Eton, and I cannot begin to imagine his horror at the thought of unpolished shoes. I have applied for an Adjournment debate. Given that the Leader of the House will not be able to speak in that debate, I am quite willing to speak on his behalf. I hope that he shares my horror that these are children who have missed out on months of education, have had a really tough time and are now being denied the right to go to school. Is Westminster Hall likely to resume sitting soon, because I may stand a better chance of securing a debate?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady raises an issue of which I have no personal knowledge, so cannot make specific comments about it, but I agree that it is absolutely important that all children get back to school. It is imperative that they do so, which is why it has been a big priority of the Government and we are ensuring that it happens. I can confirm that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that Westminster Hall debates are up and running again next month. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to update us further soon.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
This week saw the launch of Onward’s levelling up taskforce, which seeks to address regional inequalities, such as those in my constituency, and to support the Government’s delivery of its manifesto pledge to level up. Will the Deputy Leader of the House make parliamentary time available to address how covid-19 has exacerbated those inequalities and how the Government seek to maintain the momentum for levelling up in historically underfunded communities such as Stoke-on-Trent?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We had an opportunity in yesterday’s debate to talk about those very issues. She is right to say that coronavirus has affected different parts of the country in different ways. We have already published work looking at the various disparities in the way that the virus has affected different people in different regions. I hope that she will be assured that Public Health England is working with the local authorities to identify the way in which they have widened and hopefully we can mitigate that. I know that we now have excellent Members of Parliament for that great city who will carry on fighting to ensure that we level up we as promised.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]
A constituent contacted me yesterday to say that she had been trying to get a test for her eight-year-old asthmatic son who had been showing covid symptoms since 7.30 that morning. Her partner, who is a key worker, also had symptoms. By mid-afternoon, she was told that the only place with any availability was in Scotland. She lives in Bradford, an area currently under local restrictions with rates that are now the second highest in the country. When she went to the local walk-in testing centre, she was told that the tests had been sent elsewhere in the country. Although she has a test booked for today, many other people are facing exactly the same issue. Does the acting Leader of the House agree that that is totally unacceptable, and will he ensure that the Health Secretary sorts it out?
While the hon. Gentleman is at it, will he also ensure that the Health Secretary properly answers letters from MPs? In response to two separate letters that I wrote to the Secretary of State about the imposition of local restrictions, I received a single letter from an official who did not deal with any of the substantive issues raised. Given that my constituents are currently experiencing additional restrictions on their freedoms, does the acting Leader of the House think that I, as their representative, deserve a full and proper answer direct from the Secretary of State?
Stuart Andrew
Of course, being a neighbouring Member of Parliament, I know exactly the issue that the hon. Lady faces regarding Bradford. As I said a moment ago, we are testing thousands and thousands of people. I accept that there are some issues, however, and I will certainly raise them with the Secretary of State. I know that the Leader of the House has personally been looking into the response to correspondence, and in fairness to the Department of Health and Social Care, it has received thousands and thousands of pieces of correspondence. I recognise, however, that we need to do better, and I know that the Leader of the House is ensuring that that happens.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)[V]
I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box.
Notwithstanding the debate on aviation later today, let me give just one example of how British Airways is treating long-term employees. I have a constituent whose contract has two months to run. She has been sent a new contract that expects her, in just over a week, to agree to a cut of thousands of pounds to her pay, and to transfer to a zero-hours contract or take compulsory redundancy. She feels threatened and bullied, as do many others, and she knows of other companies following that pattern. Will my hon. Friend arrange for a debate on corporate employment practices and the way that some employees, particularly women, are facing brutal choices? Let us examine what the Government can do to assist them through this changing corporate landscape.
Stuart Andrew
A huge strain has been put on many industries, and the Government have taken unprecedented action to support them. In light of that, the sort of behaviour described by my right hon. Friend is frankly unacceptable. I assure her that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that all employers remember the contract that they signed with their employees. There is a debate this afternoon, but she may also wish to apply to the Backbench Business Committee on this topic.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I wish the Leader of his House and his family all the best. I have just come out of quarantine, and it is quite challenging to be stuck within four walls, although how big someone’s four walls are might be debatable. The rise of covid infection rates is worrying to us all, and one way of protecting ourselves, and others, is to wear face coverings in many settings. The Government have mandated that in many settings, but why are we not considering the more widespread use of face coverings in this House and our own working lives? Clearly we have not done that, and it is not always possible to socially distance in this House. Would it be a way of protecting all members of staff in Parliament if face coverings were more widespread, and would it be sensible to debate that?
Stuart Andrew
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position, and I know that, as her neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wanted to welcome her too. I will not comment on the issue of four walls—mine are very small. The House authorities have done an enormous amount of work to make this place safe, and if people want to wear face masks, they have the freedom and the right to do so.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Notwithstanding the statement that will follow, may we have a debate on the Government’s orders, which will marshal us in our streets and have a profound impact on family and social life? Will the Minister hang his head in shame that such orders can be made in a democracy without even a debate in a free Parliament?
Stuart Andrew
It was this House, through legislation, that gave Ministers the powers to implement these measures. Ministers are not making these decisions lightly; they are not easy decisions to make. We do not want wilfully to restrict people’s civil liberties, but we have to act to ensure that we are keeping our communities safe. If my right hon. Friend wants a debate, I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would be happy to hear his application.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Thirteen-year-old Jack Worwood was walking on the pavement on his way to play football with friends when he was hit by a vehicle. The driver, Liam Wilson, was driving at nearly three times the speed limit, and he fled the scene. Jack died the next day. Liam Wilson was sentenced last Thursday. After various reductions, it is likely that he will serve in prison only two years of a six-year sentence. Jack’s family members in my constituency are devastated at the lack of justice. On 16 October, the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill is listed ninth for debate. As it is unlikely to be reached that day, will the acting Leader of the House commit to a debate on the issue in Government time, given that both this Government and the previous one committed to legislate to increase sentences for causing death by dangerous driving?
Stuart Andrew
I cannot imagine how the family of Jack Worwood must be feeling. My sympathies—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—go to them. The issue of sentencing has been looked at and there is a sentencing review going on at the moment, but I will certainly raise the specific case with the Attorney General on the hon. Member’s behalf.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
On Saturday, Consett AFC scored an extra-time winner to take them through to the FA Vase final on 27 September. Unfortunately, yesterday’s restrictions mean that the match might have to be played behind closed doors, on the first time that Consett have reached Wembley in their 120-year history. It looks as if there will at least be significant reductions in the number of fans who can attend—down to the low hundreds. Will the Minister use his good offices, if at all possible, to push for a flexible uplift in the number of fans who can attend if the coronavirus situation allows and for a general debate in Westminster Hall on the contribution of non-league football teams to their local communities?
Stuart Andrew
I congratulate the football club. I know from when Leeds United were promoted recently that many fans were disappointed they could not have the usual celebrations. We do have Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions on 24 September, which would be a good opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the issue with Ministers. Let us hope that we get Westminster Hall open as soon as possible so that he can have that debate.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
As Members have already alluded to, today is World Suicide Prevention Day—an issue that cuts across politics and other issues, and touches on our basic humanity. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to find time for us to debate gay conversion therapy, which is a vile and fraudulent practice carried out by vile and fraudulent individuals on some of the most vulnerable people in our society; it is staggering that it is allowed in these islands at all. Scotland has been working to address the issue, and it has been found that 70% of people subjected to this practice have reported suicidal thoughts. There is a great deal of unity across the House for a ban, and we should find time to speak about the matter.
Stuart Andrew
Personally, the hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door. He raises a very important point that needs to be looked at carefully and in detail, and the Government Equalities Office is doing just that. I will certainly raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with the Minister for Women and Equalities, and come back to him.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Last weekend, my son developed a persistent cough after his first week back at school. We went online, booked a test, drove six miles to the test centre and had the results back in less than 24 hours, and I am delighted to say that they were negative. But that short period in quarantine was not an easy one, and I hope that the Leader of the House is released from his quarantine as quickly as I was. This week, though, I have heard from constituents in Warrington who have been told that their nearest test centre is 76 miles away in Telford. Will my hon. Friend tell me what steps the Government are taking with Public Health England to increase testing capacity in Warrington and to bring more testing specialist labs online?
Stuart Andrew
I am glad that my hon. Friend had a successful experience with his testing and that he got the results very quickly. He is right to raise these issues. I accept that with the huge-scale operation happening at the moment, there will be some problems, but the Secretary of State for Health is coming shortly. I hope my hon. Friend will stay and listen to his answers.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Isn’t the acting Leader of the House doing such a good job today? He is being very clear and, as Sir Humphrey would say, very courageous. He has made it clear that if the Government announce new policy outside the House, they are breaking the ministerial code and that he will reprimand that Minister. Well, yesterday the Prime Minister announced major new policy in a press conference, so I assume the acting Leader of the House is going to go round to No. 10 and tell the Prime Minister off. Could the acting Leader of the House make a statement next week on how that meeting goes?
Stuart Andrew
There is nothing like a bit of friendly fire, is there? [Laughter.] And to think that my hon. Friend stood in my constituency in 1997, I thought he would have been a bit more friendly. [Laughter.] I have made it very clear that the Leader of the House absolutely reinforces the message that statements should be made to the House, and he will continue to do so. Unfortunately, I suspect that I will not be here answering questions next week, so I will not be able to tell my hon. Friend how that meeting went.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Northern trains decided, just as the Government encouraged people back to work, to cancel all services to Manchester Piccadilly along the Rose Hill line until December. This would close Rose Hill, Woodley, Hyde Central, Hyde North and Fairfield stations. Working cross-party with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and Councillor David Meller, Stockport’s transport lead, we are seeking an urgent resolution to this problem. We met the Minister last week, who was really understanding, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has the Adjournment debate this evening on the issue, but what more can we do to send the clearest unified message from this House of Commons that Northern should think again?
Stuart Andrew
As the hon. Gentleman mentions, the Adjournment debate today will be on that very issue. He will have another opportunity to raise the issue at Transport questions next Thursday, and I am sure he will do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May we have a debate on state aid? I am mystified why this should be a problem in the free trade talks. Will the acting Leader of the House confirm—indeed, will the Government confirm—that we have no intention of returning to the failed policies of the 1970s and that we have no intention of propping up failed companies or picking winners? If the Leader of the House was here, he could give us a lecture on the failed policies of 18th century mercantilism and the failed policies of autarky. Let us have a firm statement from the Government that the only freedom we want to have on state aid is to give less state aid than the EU norm. Let us have it now.
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend will be delighted to know that we are having that debate on Monday, when those can points can be made.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May we have a debate on establishing a bereavement standard to simplify, streamline and standardise the process for grieving families to close accounts with utility companies and service providers following the death of a loved one? I anticipate that the acting Leader of the House will say that I should go and see my good and hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and the Backbench Business Committee, but may I respectfully draw the acting Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 818?
[That this House calls on the Government to introduce a Bereavement Standard to simplify and streamline the process for grieving families to close accounts with service providers following the death of a loved one; believes the lack of such a standard has created a complex array of arrangements with each service provider requiring different levels of information to close accounts; notes that it can often take weeks, months, and in the worst cases years to close down accounts prolonging the pain and suffering for a family in mourning; further notes that the four simple campaign aims would support families as well as streamlining the process and providing a level playing field for business by introducing standardised paperwork to close an account, accepting digital death certificates, wills and proof of beneficiary status where possible, dedicated bereavement customer care channels (email, chat, webforms) to avoid long call waiting times, an agreed timeframe for companies to respond and settle accounts, and agreed bereavement customer service behaviours supported by adequate training; and urges the Government to work immediately with industry to introduce a Bereavement Standard to support grieving families, many of whom have been impacted recently by COVID-19, through one of the most difficult times in their lives.]
The acting Leader of the House will see that there are sound arguments that, as well as aiding families, will support businesses. The EDM has attracted more signatures than any other EDM signed since 1 September, but it is noticeable that few members of the Government party have signed. In anticipation of pursuing it through the Backbench Business Committee route, will he encourage them to sign that EDM to identify their support for the campaign?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman has certainly advertised that EDM very well. He raises a very important point. Bereavement is a difficult and trying time. I will write to the Minister responsible and come back to him.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I was taught that your word is your bond, that if you sign something, you honour it, that if you swear something, you stand by it, and that absolutely essential to British values is the rule of law that underpins democracy. I am completely perplexed how a Lord Chancellor, who has by law to swear that he will respect the rule of law, could possibly sign off an explanatory memorandum for the Bill that we are to debate on Monday, which states there is
“inconsistency or incompatibility with international or other domestic law”.
How can we possibly go to China and preach to them about abiding by the treaty on Hong Kong and how can we possibly preach to Putin about honouring his obligations to guarantee the integrity of Ukraine when we have said to the world that we no longer believe in the rule of law?
Stuart Andrew
I am afraid I do not accept that that is what we are saying. We are deactivating a certain EU law restriction in a specific and limited way to make sure that the Government always have the ability to protect the peace process and to ensure we can support our economic recovery, but the hon. Gentleman has every opportunity over the five days of the next fortnight to raise those points, and knowing him, I am sure that he will.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box, where he is taking both hostile and friendly fire with aplomb? As a northerner, he will know that the residents, farmers and business owners of South Ribble are a resilient bunch. However, this summer too many of them have been flooded in Leyland, Tarleton, Hesketh Bank and Banks. People have lost crops. They have lost possessions, and their businesses have been damaged, and they are rightly cross and upset. The ways to fix that distressing problem sit with too many individual organisations at the moment. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to urgently bring forward its surface water flooding proposals and get this serious problem addressed?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this incredibly important issue, because people are rightly worried about the threat of flooding. I know that she has met with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I will certainly make sure that the point she has raised is passed on again, but it is important to remember that we have announced record amounts of investment. I know that she wants that sooner rather than later, and I will certainly push the specific questions she asked.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
May we have a statement from the Department for Transport on extending the period of validity for theory test certificates? My Garrowhill constituent Craig Donaldson was due to sit his practical driving test, but when lockdown came, his theory test expired. Will the Minister organise for the Department for Transport to do the right thing and ensure an extension of theory test certificates so that Craig can take his driving test?
Stuart Andrew
I am sure that Craig, like many other people across the whole country, are keen to get on with their tests. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity on Thursday to raise the question at Transport questions, which I am sure he will do.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Listening to the skilfully reassuring—indeed, mellifluous—responses of my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box, one could easily forget that outside this House, increasing numbers of reasonable people have a mounting sense of alarm about the Government’s response to coronavirus. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), may I press the Minister that we really do need a debate in Government time on liberty and the rule of law under the Government’s coronavirus response?
Stuart Andrew
I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for civil liberties and has made that point on many occasions in this House. I will certainly raise that request for a debate with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Despite the horrors of Grenfell and subsequent Government promises, the majority of buildings that were identified as having flammable aluminium composite material cladding, or other dangerous cladding, still have it covering their walls. High-rise residents, including in my Slough constituency, have been left concerned for their safety and understandably frustrated that, even after three long years, so little has been done to help them. Indeed, at the current rate of remediation, it will take a shocking 39 years to fix. Does the acting Leader of the House agree that the Government must do much more and that he personally should allocate time for Members to raise this important issue in a debate, to give those despairing constituents a voice?
Stuart Andrew
As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), the Government take this issue very seriously. Some 215 buildings have now had their ACM cladding removed—that represents 47% of buildings—and work is already under way on a further 108. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important and I will make sure that Ministers have heard his voice.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
You, Mr Speaker, the acting Leader of the House and House of Commons staff should be congratulated on the fact that we have not lost one single sitting day in this Parliament as a result of coronavirus. We do, though, need to find a new balance—a new way of working. The call-list system and the continued lack of Westminster Hall debates reduces our ability to raise issues that we need to consider, and there is a risk of losing the spontaneity of this place, which is so important. Usually, at 10.30 am it is standing-room only in this place, but even the socially distanced places are empty. We need to operate safely, but we need expansive and spontaneous debate, which is a crucial part of our parliamentary process. Can the acting Leader reflect on that and perhaps draw together a way to address the issues in respect of the way we run the House? Perhaps he can explain to me why we do not have Westminster Hall debates next week—what is stopping us?
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend asks me some questions that I probably do not have the ability to answer at this stage. I do recognise the importance of getting every aspect of the House of Commons and Parliament up and running as normally as possible. She is absolutely right that having the Chamber full, with scrutiny, debate and interventions, is incredibly important. I understand that the Commission will meet on Monday to discuss many of these issues; hopefully there will be further updates from the Leader of the House next week.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There was deep disappointment among my constituents about the Government’s decision not to vote for the extremely reasonable amendments to the Fire Safety Bill. Beyond Government action, will the hon. Gentleman find time for an urgent debate about the responsibility of original building developers and the insurance industry? Companies such as Taylor Wimpey, Laing O’Rourke, Redrow and others are simply not living up to their responsibilities when fire safety and other building defects are found, as they have been in my own constituency.
Stuart Andrew
I reiterate the points that the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), made at this Dispatch Box: we are determined to bring in that legislation, but we need to go through the sequential way in which it has to be done. The points the hon. Gentleman raised are important and I will certainly write to the Minister for him and ask for an answer.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to see my constituency neighbour at the Dispatch Box, although I am a little surprised to see him as acting Leader of the House. I welcome him to his place.
I am sure the acting Leader of the House shares my concerns about air quality. Today sees the publication of the Climate Assembly UK report, of which air quality is an important part. Our clean-air zone in Leeds is under threat. We have not had a statement from the Government or a debate on air quality, which is an issue not just for us in Leeds but for those in Birmingham and other cities. Will he press his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come forward and make a statement, or for there to be a debate in the House on this hugely important issue?
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful for the kind comments of my constituency neighbour. He is right to highlight air quality. It is good to see that there have been some significant improvements, but much, much more needs to be done, and he rightly cites cities such as Leeds. We have just had DEFRA questions, of course, but he may want to think about applying for an Adjournment debate, at which a Minister can come and answer his specific questions.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
High-street regeneration is an important part of the levelling-up process for northern towns such as Radcliffe in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to start to regenerate our towns is by promoting the shops and businesses that are already in towns, through campaigns such as my independent shop competition, which runs until the end of this month? Will he find the time for a statement or debate in Government time on the importance of high-street regeneration, which is vital to towns throughout the country and particularly to northern towns that need levelling up?
Stuart Andrew
I commend my hon. Friend for his independent shop competition idea, which I may have to try to pinch for my constituency. The Government are bringing forward a further £90 million as part of the towns fund, which he will obviously be interested in. There is an opportunity post covid, when more people may be working from home, to regenerate our town centres, as people leave home for their lunch hour, for example. I suggest he applies for an Adjournment debate, but I will continue to raise his points with the Minister responsible.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
At his briefing yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to a “moonshot” strategy for covid testing. May we have a debate, in Government time, to establish what this moonshot strategy means, or whether the Prime Minister is in fact tuned to the moon, on this and other issues?
Stuart Andrew
I actually think it is important that we are ambitious about trying to get as much testing as possible. People just try to shoot this down right at the beginning. I remember when they thought we would not get to 100,000 tests a week—we are far exceeding that now.
Stuart Andrew
It is going a lot better here than in many other countries. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is about to make a statement, when the hon. Lady will be able to hear his answers.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
One of the highlights of my week last week was sitting in my office and getting a very excited FaceTime call from my four-year-old god-daughter after her first day back at school. It has been great seeing the faces of the children as they are excitedly seeing their friends and learning again. Unfortunately, some children in my constituency are unable to go back to their school. Greenfield Community College’s Sunnydale site in Shildon closed last December, and it has fallen into a state of disrepair and has not yet reopened. We want to see the repairs completed as soon as possible. Does my hon. Friend agree that the repairs need to get done as soon as possible? Will he encourage the Secretary of State to meet me to discuss how best we can look at providing good secondary education in Shildon, in order to give children the best possible start in life?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of young people being back in school, where they belong, being taught by teachers and being with their friends. I understand that Durham County Council is responsible for the college’s buildings and that pupils are being supported to attend a site at Newton Aycliffe. I will certainly make sure that I speak to the Minister responsible and try to seek a meeting for my hon. Friend.
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.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State, I would like to say that he and I had a conversation in a meeting last night, and I think we have some new arrangements coming forward to help the House.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Just to concur with what you have said, I do regard it as incredibly important to come to the House as often as possible. Sometimes these are fast-moving situations, and I will ensure that I give the House my full attention and, as I try to do, answer as many questions as fully as I can.
With permission, I would like to make a further statement on coronavirus. We have done much as a nation to get this virus under control, so we have been able to restore so much. To give just one example, figures today show that radiotherapy services in England have now returned to pre-pandemic levels. This is good news and will save lives. But as I said to the House on Tuesday, we are seeing some concerning trends, including an increase in the number of positive cases, especially, but not only, among younger people. As the chief medical officer said yesterday, we must learn from the recent experience of countries such as Belgium that have successfully put in place measures to combat a similar rise in infections. So today, I would like to update the House on a number of new measures that will help us to get this virus under control and to make the rules clearer, simpler and more enforceable.
First, we are putting in place new rules on social contact. We have listened to feedback from the public and the police, and we are simplifying and strengthening the rules, making them easier to understand and easier to enforce. In England, from Monday, we are introducing the rule of six. Nobody should meet socially in groups of more than six, and if they do, they will be breaking the law. This will apply in any setting—indoors or outdoors, at home or in the pub. It replaces both the existing ban on gatherings of more than 30 and the current guidance on allowing two households to meet indoors.
There will be some exemptions. For example, if a single household or support bubble is larger than six, they can still gather. Places of education and work are unaffected. Covid-secure weddings, wedding receptions and funerals can go ahead up to a limit of 30 people. Organised sport and exercise is exempt.
These are not measures that we take lightly. I understand that for many they will mean changing long-awaited plans or missing out on precious moments with loved ones, but this sacrifice is vital to control the virus for the long term and save lives, and I vow that we will not keep these rules in place for any longer than we have to.
Secondly, we are putting in place stronger enforcement. Hospitality venues will be legally required to request the contact details of every party. They will have to record and retain those details for 21 days and provide them to NHS Test and Trace without delay when required. This system is working well voluntarily, with minimal friction, and it is very effective, but it is not in place in all venues. It is only fair that it is followed by all. We are supporting local authorities to make greater use of their powers to close venues that are breaking rules and pose a risk to public health, and fines will be levied against hospitality venues that fail to ensure their premises are covid-secure.
Our goal, as much as possible, is to protect keeping schools and businesses open, while controlling the virus. The data show that, while the cases among 17 to 30-year-olds are rising, the number of cases among the under-16s remains very low. We all know how important it is to keep schools open. As the chief medical officers have said, the long-term risks to children’s life chances of not going to school are significant and far greater than the health risks of going back to school. The latest data confirm that.
University students will soon be returning. The Department for Education has published the updated guidance for universities on how they can operate in a covid-secure way. That includes a clear request not to send students home in the event of an outbreak, to avoid spreading the virus further across the country. If you are a student who is about to return to university or go to university for the first time, please, for the sake of your education and your parents’ and grandparents’ health, follow the rules and do not gather in groups of more than six.
Our ability to test and trace on a large scale is fundamental to controlling the virus, as we have discussed in the House many times. The latest data show that we are doing more testing per head than other European countries such as Germany and Spain, and we have record capacity. We have increased capacity by more than 10,000 tests a day over the last fortnight. While there have been challenges in access to tests, the vast majority of people get their tests rapidly and close to home. The average distance travelled to a test site is 6.4 miles, and 90% of people who book a test travel 22 miles or less. We already have more than 400 testing sites in operation. We added 19 last week and plan 17 more this week.
However, as capacity has increased, we have seen an even faster rise in demand, including a significant increase from people who do not have symptoms and are not eligible for a test. That takes tests away from people who need them. If you have symptoms of coronavirus or are asked by a clinician or local authority to get a test, please apply, but if you do not have symptoms and have not been asked, you are not eligible for a test.
At the same time, we are developing new types of test that are simple, quick and scalable. They use swabs or saliva and can be turned round in 90 minutes or even 20 minutes. So-called Operation Moonshot, to deploy mass testing, will allow people to lead more normal lives and reduce the need for social distancing. For instance, it could mean that theatres and sports venues could test audience members on the day and let in those with a negative result, workplaces could be opened up to all those who test negative that morning, and anyone isolating because they are a contact or quarantining after travelling abroad could be tested and released. We are piloting that approach right now and verifying the new technology, and then it can be rolled out nationwide. [Laughter.]
I am going to depart from my script here. I have heard the nay-sayers before, and I have heard Opposition Members complain that we will never get testing going. They are the same old voices. They opposed the 100,000 tests, and did we deliver that? Yes, we did. They say, “What about testing in care homes?” Well, we delivered the tests to care homes earlier this week. They are against everything that is needed to sort this problem for this country, and they would do far better to support their constituents and get with the programme. I am looking forward to rolling out this programme and this work, which has been under way for some time already, and I am determined that we will get there. If everything comes together, and if the technology comes off, it will be possible, even for challenging sectors, such as theatres, to get closer to normal before Christmas.
Finally, the most important thing that each and every one of us can do is remember the small things that can make a big difference: hands, face, space, and if you have symptoms, get a test! Hands: wash your hands regularly and for 20 seconds. Face: wear a face covering over your mouth and nose if you are in an enclosed space and in close contact with people you do not normally meet. Space: always stay 2 metres away from people you do not live with, or 1 metre with extra precautions, such as extra ventilation, screens or face coverings. And of course, if you have covid symptoms, get a test and self-isolate.
Coronavirus is a powerful adversary, and when called upon, the British people have done so much to blunt the force of this invisible killer. Now, at this important juncture, we are being called upon once more to deliver our collective commitment to follow the rules and get this virus under control. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, I am grateful for my advance copy of the statement.
We welcome the restrictions that the Government have imposed—indeed, we would have welcomed them on Tuesday afternoon, had the Secretary of State confirmed what was being said on Twitter that morning. Case numbers have been rising sharply in recent days across all ages and sadly the number of hospital admissions is beginning to increase as well. We all want to avoid a second national lockdown. Lockdowns extract a heavy social and economic price on those already suffering, and we should also remember, especially today, which is World Suicide Prevention Day, the mental health impact of lockdowns.
Before I comment on the substance of the Secretary of State’s remarks, I want to ask about schools. We have had many examples across the country of classes and whole year groups—hundreds, possibly thousands, of pupils—starting the new term as they finished the last term: at home and not in education. Is it really the Government’s policy that if there are one or two positive cases in a year group, the whole year group is sent home for two weeks? If so, are parents and carers eligible for sick pay and financial support, given that they will have to take time off work to look after their children?
We were promised a world-beating test, trace and isolate regime by now. The Secretary of State says we have one. On Tuesday, I highlighted the deteriorating performance in finding contacts. He said that I had muddled my figures. Full Fact said I was right and he was wrong. I will leave it to him to judge whether he wants to correct the record. I would rather he just correct Test and Trace. In one study, researchers found that 75% of infected people did not adhere to the self-isolation rules. I know he is piloting extra support, but we need a system now, urgently, so that those who are low paid and in insecure work can isolate without fear of losing their jobs. We need a system immediately. We have been calling for it for months.
On testing, the Secretary of State told us a few moments ago to get with the programme. We just want him to deliver testing for our constituents. We have had example after example of people being told to go hundreds of miles. In Telford, the borough has been gridlocked because the system has been telling everybody to go to Telford. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was touring TV studios trying to dampen demand, even though he had previously said in the House in July to people with symptoms:
“If in doubt, get a test.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1864.]
He was telling people to get tests.
Given that the Secretary of State had encouraged people to get tests, and with 8 million pupils returning to school, with thousands going back to workplaces, as his Prime Minister has insisted on, surely it was obvious there would be extra demand on the system, so why did he not plan extra resource capacity to process tests? It is not the fault of ill people asking for tests; it is his fault for not providing them. We have had no apology today to our constituents who have been told to travel hundreds of miles for a test.
Having failed to provide the tests that people need and, by the way, having failed to provide wider diagnostic tests—the waiting list for diagnostic tests hit 1.2 million today, the highest on record—the Secretary of State now wants to deliver 10 million tests a day as part of his so-called Project Moonshot. I have long been pushing him for a strategic mass testing regime, and from the start the World Health Organisation has told us to “test, test, test”, but we are all fed up with undelivered promises and “world beating”. Mass testing is too important to become another failed project. It is all well and good the Secretary of State talking about moonshots, or the Prime Minister telling us that we will be tested every morning, but even better would be simply to deliver the extra testing that is needed now, not just the headline figures.
I have some specific questions. First, the Prime Minister told the nation that he wants this in place by the spring. The chief scientific adviser pointed out that it would be
“completely wrong to assume this is a slam dunk that can definitely happen”.
How quickly will this be delivered, and how quickly will the pilots in Salford and Southampton be assessed?
Secondly, what is the cost? According to The BMJ—the British Medical Journal—leaked documents suggest that the cost will be £100 billion. Is that correct? If not, will the Secretary of State tell us his estimate of the cost of processing 10 million tests a day, and will he tell us how much has been allocated to Project Moonshot?
Thirdly, who will deliver that? There are universities piloting projects, such as the University of Leicester rolling out LAMP—loop-mediated isothermal amplification —testing, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with them? However, it has been reported that he has already signed agreements and understandings for the delivery of this project with GSK, Serco and G4S. What procurement processes have been undertaken, and will he tell us whether that is correct?
Fourthly, what are the priorities? The Secretary of State is still not testing the loved ones of care home residents who are desperate to see relatives, and when will the Government actually deliver the routine testing of all frontline NHS staff, which we have been demanding for months? Effective testing depends on quick turnaround, local access and effective contact tracing. Given that he has not even been able to deliver those basics, how on earth do we expect him to deliver this moonshot?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman was rather better when he was supporting the Government action in the first part of his response. He cannot seem to decide whether he is in favour of more testing, or against it. All we get is complaint after complaint, rather than support for his constituents and the people of this country in our quest to get through this virus.
First, on who is eligible for a test, precisely as I said and as he literally read out, if you have symptoms, get a test. If you do not have symptoms, you are not eligible for a test, unless specifically asked for one. [Hon. Members: “If in doubt!”] Yes, if you have symptoms and are in doubt about whether those symptoms are coronavirus, get a test. If you do not have symptoms, do not get a test. That has not changed. It is exactly the same. What has changed is that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) does not know whether he is coming or going.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the way in which we build a huge project like our testing, which is at record levels, is to back all the horses. Once again, he complained about businesses supporting us in our roll-out of mass testing. That divisive approach is wrong. We support universities, businesses and the NHS to deliver more testing; we do not support the totally confused approach of the Opposition. He does not know whether he is in favour of or against more testing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the money, and £500 million has thus far been allocated to this project, but more is likely. He asked about staff testing in the NHS. As he well knows, we follow clinical advice, but always keep it under review. Finally, he asked about schools. The policy on schools is that, if somebody tests positive, that bubble needs to self-isolate. A bubble is defined as those who are in close contact within a school setting.
I will end on a point on which we agree strongly. On this, World Suicide Prevention Day, all of us are united in support of the mental health services provided across this country, and of all those who are working hard for those with mental ill health or at risk of suicide. That is a project on which all of us are on the same side and working together to support people.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
As someone who has long campaigned for mass testing, I warmly welcome the ambition behind Operation Moonshot—and the implied characterisation of the Health Secretary as this country’s answer to Neil Armstrong. However, 10 million is a huge target. Could he give the House some idea of the proportion of that 10 million that is dependent on new technologies and the proportion that we can get to with existing technologies? Mass testing is so important to getting the country back to running as normal, and while we all want those new technologies, it would be helpful to have an understanding of how much expansion we can expect on the technologies we already have.
Matt Hancock
That is an extremely clear and strong position from the Chair of the Select Committee. Of course we are expanding the current technologies. We have a plan, when we are on track for it, to get to 500,000 tests a day by the end of next month, on the current technologies. On the next generation of technologies, I am not going to put a figure on it because it depends on the technologies coming off. The very nature of backing new technologies is that we do not know which ones are going to be verified. That is why we have so many that are being piloted and so many with whom we are working. We have tests right now in Porton Down being verified. We want this to go as fast as we can, and we want it to go as large as we reasonably can, but we do not put a specific figure on it—we put all our weight and support behind this project, which will have the positive benefits that my right hon. Friend so eloquently sets out.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister describe his Operation Moonshot as the
“only hope for avoiding a second national lockdown”.
Already some experts have described this mass testing strategy as being fundamentally flawed. So does the Secretary of State think that the Prime Minister is gambling on something that the experts feel cannot be delivered?
On Tuesday, the Secretary of State failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) when she asked if it would be better to allow tests to be carried out locally and just move the samples around the UK instead of potentially infectious people. As he did not give an answer then, will he consider this now?
Finally, will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the launch of Scotland’s Protect Scotland mobile tracing app yesterday? What update can he give the House on his own Government’s plans to release a similar app?
Matt Hancock
We have been working with the Scottish Government, as well as with the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government, and actually Governments internationally, on an update on the app technology.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, that is simply a mischaracterisation of the policy. Of course we move samples around the country all the time. What we want to do, of course, is to continue to reduce the distance people have to travel. As I say, the average distance that people have to travel to get a test is 6.4 miles.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, there were, in the spring, some people who complained about my determination to expand our testing capacity at a record pace. We are hearing some of those voices again complaining that we want to increase testing. Both the SNP and Labour are making a huge mistake in opposing mass testing. It is an incredibly important tool in our arsenal.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is a great supporter of the UK’s businesses and entrepreneurs. In his measures to tackle the virus, will he intercede with his public health colleagues to prioritise the businesses that generate economic growth so that when this is over we have an economy that is prosperous enough to cash the very generous cheques that we have written?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with great knowledge, experience and eloquence on this matter. We have to protect livelihoods as much as possible, in the same way that we are trying to protect education as much as possible. That does mean sometimes that we have to take measures on social contact that people would prefer not to see, but unfortunately the measures that the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, and which I set out in my statement, are, in my judgment, absolutely necessary both to keeping the virus under control and to protecting education and the economy as much as possible.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
A significant increase in covid cases has been confirmed in Liverpool over the past week, with widespread community transmission. I have been contacted by constituents with symptoms who are trying to book a test and either cannot, or are told to go to Oldham, Manchester, Powys, or Colwyn Bay, even though there is a testing facility at Liverpool airport just down the road, in the constituency. Will the Secretary of State explain why that is, and say why there is no availability of home test kits, given that there appears to be so much unused testing capacity?
Matt Hancock
As I said in my statement, there is record testing capacity, and most people get tested very close to home. We do have a challenge, however, because some people without symptoms who are not eligible for a test have been coming forward. Thus far, I have been reluctant to place a barrier and a strong eligibility check on the front of the testing system, because I want people with symptoms to get that test as fast and easily as possible. However, given the sharp rise in the past couple of weeks of people coming forward for tests when they are not eligible, we are having to look at that. The key message to the hon. Lady’s constituents is that the tests are vital for people who have symptoms, and therefore people who do not have symptoms and have not been told by a clinician or local authority to get a test, should not and must not go and use a test that somebody else who needs it should be using.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I understand the recent actions that my right hon. Friend has taken to limit gatherings to six people, and I encourage everyone in West Bromwich East and the wider west midlands to follow the new rules. Does he agree that West Bromwich should remain separate from any local lockdown in central Birmingham, given that they are two distinct areas with varying rates of infection?
Matt Hancock
Of course, West Brom is a distinct area and separate in its geography from central Birmingham. However, I caution my hon. Friend that we are seeing sharp rises in cases across many parts of the west midlands. We take these decisions on a localised basis; we do not take a whole local authority or area of regional geography in one go, but we do follow the data. I will make sure to keep in touch with my hon. Friend. She is a strong advocate for her local area, but sometimes action is necessary.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the new test centre in Wythenshawe town centre that opened this week, but may I challenge him on the consistency of governance around his Department? In Greater Manchester, Manchester Evening News is reporting that Bolton has been subject to four sets of rule changes in the past fortnight. ITV is saying that 74 local authorities have a higher infection rate now than Greater Manchester had before it went into lockdown. Last week, my constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East, which straddles Manchester and Trafford, would have been split asunder if the Department had not U-turned. Restrictions in Greater Manchester are not working because infection rates have mushroomed. What is next, Secretary of State?
Matt Hancock
I was in contact with the Mayor of Greater Manchester this morning on the question of what we do in Greater Manchester. The national measures that were announced yesterday will come into force in Greater Manchester, and it is important that people follow them. We took further action in Bolton. The case rate in Bolton was coming down well, but thankfully before we implemented the rule change to remove some of the restrictions, we were able to act and stop that relaxation from happening, and we then had to tighten the rules up. I am working closely with councils in Greater Manchester, and talking to the Mayor, and I will also take on board the hon. Gentleman’s views in ensuring that we get these measures right. The message to everyone in Greater Manchester is the same as it is across the country: follow the rules and follow the social distancing, because only by doing that can we get this under control.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Secretary of State must accept that there is a problem here. Constituents of mine in Kent displaying symptoms of covid were this week advised to go for tests in Bude in Cornwall and Galashiels in Scotland—and this is in a mild September, before the autumn and winter when people have coughs and colds that may look like symptoms of covid. It is no good blaming people who are asymptomatic. I would be interested if the Secretary of State could say what percentage of people turning up for testing do not have symptoms. This situation needs his personal grip. He referred to the need for him to increase testing capacity from 1,000 a day to 100,000 a day. This is an urgent matter that he needs to grip before the autumn and winter bites. Will he commit to ensuring that by the end of the month anyone who has symptoms of covid can get a test at a reasonable place that is convenient to their home?
Matt Hancock
It is of course my goal for that to happen immediately. The challenge is to increase capacity—a subject that my right hon. Friend and I have discussed at length, and of which I know he is a strong supporter—and to make sure that that capacity is used by the right people. That is why I am clear about the eligibility for testing. It is really important that people hear the message that if they have symptoms, of course they should get a test; we urge them to get a test because we need to find out if it is covid for their sake and for everybody else’s. But at the same time, it is important that people who are not eligible do not come forward for tests because they are taking a test away from somebody who has symptoms. Yes, I want to solve this with ever more capacity, but I also want to ensure that the tests are used by the right people.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Many of my constituents are incredibly anxious about schools reopening and want to send their children off to school in the knowledge that they are safe. I am sure that the Health Secretary agrees that keeping schools open safely requires a testing infrastructure that is fit for purpose, so can he explain to the House why each school has been provided with only 10 testing kits?
Matt Hancock
We have strong protocols on the return to school. I am really glad about the success of the policy to get all schools back; it is one of the Government’s unsung successes over recent weeks, and is working effectively. The guidelines set out very clearly when testing is appropriate. Testing is appropriate for people who have symptoms. Close contacts of people who have symptoms need to self-isolate and not get a test unless they have symptoms because getting a test would not allow them to leave self-isolation anyway because of the risk of false negatives. That is why the policy is as it is. We have given each school 10 or more tests so that they can easily use them in an emergency, and that has been warmly welcomed by most schools.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
A successful return to school in west Berkshire has been matched with a reduction in the availability of testing. I have listened to my right hon. Friend this morning; if there is a reluctance to impose more stringent eligibility criteria, would he consider an order of priority based on, for example, working parents and teachers being able to access tests sooner?
Matt Hancock
Again, there has not been a reduction in capacity in Berkshire or anywhere else in the country. There has been an increase in capacity. My hon. Friend makes a good point, though, about prioritisation. The question is how to enforce prioritisation without putting in place barriers that slow down access to tests for people who need them. We are looking at that now.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Will the Secretary of State please explain the lack of availability of home testing kits, which has dropped dramatically in my area of West Lancashire? In the absence of home testing kits, very ill pensioners are being offered tests 80 or 100 miles away. The confusing message in the assurance that he is trying to give is that there are too many getting tested, but that, if in doubt, people should get tested. How does that deal with the asymptomatic carriers or spreaders? This is a huge hidden danger. In the light of the Secretary of State’s earlier comment, my constituents would genuinely love to get with the programme, get tested where necessary and stay safe—if only the Government’s words met their actual experience of the system.
Matt Hancock
The clarity that the hon. Lady calls for can be provided as follows. If you have symptoms, get a test. If you do not have symptoms, and you have not been asked to get a test, please do not use a test that somebody else needs because they do have symptoms—they might be elderly, for instance, and she rightly refers to her constituents—because the tests are there for them. The capacity is expanding every day, but we need to ensure that we get those tests to the people who need them.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
To reiterate the point made by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton are in themselves unique and very diverse, particularly from Birmingham. I was very reassured by my right hon. Friend’s reply to my question last week about a sub-local level approach to national restrictions. Can he confirm what that looks like in detail and, in particular, where the lines will be drawn, and can he assure me that the approach taken will not be an arbitrary line-drawing process but a real engagement with local stakeholders?
Matt Hancock
We consider the approach to local action on a ward by ward level. For instance, in parts of east Lancashire and west Yorkshire we have a ward-by-ward decision. That is driven by the data, so we do have to look at the data across the board. I take very seriously the views of the local directors of public health. There are several parts of the country, including my hon. Friend’s constituency, where I am concerned about the rise in the number of cases.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
The lockdown in Bolton will devastate the hospitality industry and affect the physical and emotional health of my constituents, so will the Secretary of State ensure that they can be tested in Bolton as soon as they require it? Will he ask his friend the Chancellor to provide more financial assistance to the Bolton economy, because the maximum £1,500 for three weeks is not enough; it just about pays for one employee on the minimum wage?
Matt Hancock
Of course, those who have been on furlough can reapply for furlough, and yesterday the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out further support that is available for businesses in areas where we have had to intervene. The measures that we have taken in Bolton are strict but absolutely necessary, as I set out on Tuesday. I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for those measures and the discussions that we were able to have before they were introduced.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and very much welcome the exciting progress on developing saliva testing. Outstanding progress has already been made on expanding testing capacity, and he deserves our thanks for his tireless work. Inevitably, this is not without its challenges. On Tuesday evening, hundreds of cars from across the country—and I do mean hundreds—descended on Telford’s testing site, as they were directed to do by the booking system. Tests quickly ran out, roads became blocked, people who had travelled from as far away as Cornwall, Stockport and London were turned away, and my constituents were no longer able to access tests in the area and so in turn were sent elsewhere. What assurances can he give that the error in the booking system that directed so many people to Telford has now been corrected, and does he agree that people should not be criss-crossing the country and travelling for many hours to secure a test?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely agree, and I also agree with my hon. Friend’s description of the situation, which is that we have built this system at great pace. I did not know about the example in Telford, although I had heard that many people had been directed there in this instance. In fact, only on Tuesday evening, after being in the House, I had a meeting about the problem of people being directed to travel too far. We are absolutely looking at the broader problem, and I will take away that particular example and find out exactly what glitch caused it.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I note from the statement that organised sport is exempt from the new regulations. We all want life to return to normal, including sport, which is an important sector of our economy, but, as things stand, next month 20,000 spectators are scheduled to travel to Twickenham. Can the Secretary of State help me to understand the logic whereby the scientific advice suggests that a family of six cannot meet a relative in their garden, yet the Prime Minister is saying that the guidance on sporting events, which means thousands of spectators will be travelling around the country to stadiums, drinking and socialising, is still only under review?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady has answered her own question, because the Prime Minister did announce that that programme is under review, and the results of that will be announced shortly.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
We accepted massive restrictions on our liberty in March because we wanted to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed, and we achieved that—indeed, not all the capacity was used. We are now imposing more restrictions on people’s liberty. Does the Secretary of State’s strategic goal for England continue to be to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed, or has he now gone further and is aiming for zero covid in England?
Matt Hancock
We did protect the NHS all the way through the peak, and this country can rightly be proud of the building of the Nightingale hospitals. We saw a hospital in China being built in two weeks and lots of people told me that we would never do that here, but we did it here in nine days. I am very proud of the team who delivered on that. The strategic goal is to keep the virus down. The problem is that if the R goes above 1 and the numbers start going up, they inexorably continue to rise. So it is not okay just to let it rise a bit; the problem is that once it is going up, it keeps going up unless we take action. That is one lesson we learned in the spring and we have re-learned it; we can see it if we simply compare what has happened in Spain, France and Belgium. In the first two, the curves have kept going up, whereas Belgium took significant action, similar to what we announced yesterday, and its curve has come down again. So that is why there is not a trade-off between taking action, even if it is tough action, and protecting the economy and, for instance, the ability to open schools. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend’s question. We have seen a number of countries around the world announce that they are going for an eradication strategy—indeed, the Scottish Government announced that—but this virus has shown that it is very, very hard to eradicate. We want to keep it under control while we pursue both the mass testing and then the vaccine, to deal with it once and for all.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Tomorrow, I will be at Rowlands Pharmacy in Sundon Park, where I hope I will be able to get my flu jab, if supplies allow. This year, it is more important than ever to get a flu jab, to protect capacity in our NHS. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on the number of vaccines that have been secured for people this winter? Will he guarantee that there will enough vaccines for all at-risk groups?
Matt Hancock
The answer to the second question is yes. We are rolling out the biggest ever flu vaccine programme. We continued to buy flu vaccine throughout the spring and summer, as it was obvious that we needed a much bigger programme than is normal. In the first instance, the vaccine will be available to the at-risk groups, including the over-65s and those with health conditions on the flu list. We will then expand the provision to the over-50s, depending on the take-up in the highest-risk groups. We set that out a couple of months ago. The flu jab is coming onstream soon. I was at a pharmacy this morning, where the flu jab is being rolled out from Monday. This will be accompanied by a huge advertising campaign to encourage people to get the flu vaccine.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
From Monday, the Government are imposing the most profound restrictions on people’s personal liberty and family life. Why has there not been a debate and a vote in the House of Commons this week?
Matt Hancock
I will take away the point my hon. Friend makes and discuss it further with the business managers. I have come to the House today to be able to answer questions on this matter. I take the point that that is not the same as the statutory instrument itself, and it is something on which I have had discussions with the business managers. Inevitably with a pandemic, we do have to move fast from the health perspective. I will make sure that I get back as soon as I can to my hon. Friend once those discussions have concluded.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
South Shields is on the watchlist. We have a testing station in my constituency, yet people cannot get a test at all or are being told to travel, with symptoms, to the other end of the country. So far this week, the Secretary of State has said, “It’s the fault of young people. It’s the fault of schools. It’s the fault of holidaymakers.” In fact, it is everyone’s fault for doing exactly what he asked and trying to get tested. He should show some leadership, own his failures, and tell us how and when he is going to rectify this awful mess.
Matt Hancock
Across the country, the average distance people have to travel is 6.4 miles. It is really important that the messages from all those who are responsible public servants and those who have strong public voices, as the hon. Member does, in South Shields, across South Tyneside, in the north-east and, indeed, across the country—and it is incumbent on us all to repeat these critical public health messages—are, “If you have symptoms, get a test, but if you are not eligible, then please don’t use up the tests that are needed for other people.”
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Youth organisations, such as scouting and guiding, and sports training clubs are vital for the social development of young people in Dudley South. Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to make sure that such youth organisations and sports coaching can continue for as long as it is safe to do so?
Matt Hancock
Yes. My hon. Friend, who speaks so clearly for his constituents and for the young people who enjoy those facilities, will I am sure be pleased to know that youth groups are exempt from the rule of six, because they have their own covid-secure guidelines, in the same way that schools do and in the same way that organised sport is exempt.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister said he would introduce an army of covid marshals to help ensure social distancing in town centres. Can the Secretary of State tell me how these covid marshals will be recruited, how much they will be paid, how they will be paid for and what powers they will have?
Matt Hancock
This programme will be rolled out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because we will be working very closely with local authorities to make it happen, and we will publish the details in due course.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I know how hard the hospital and A&E leaders are working at Leighton Hospital to prepare the hospital for winter in the context of covid, which is why I was incredibly disappointed to see the local Labour party telling residents that they were not going to get any extra funding to do that. Can the Secretary of State assure my local residents that that is not the case, but also agree to meet me to discuss the issue of much-needed longer-term investment in the Leighton Hospital site?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, who speaks so strongly for Crewe and all of its residents, on the need for a high-quality NHS. Of course, my hon. Friend is a qualified doctor who, during lockdown, spent a huge amount of time in hospital and working on the frontline of the NHS, and I think we should all applaud him for that work. I am absolutely happy to meet him. He knows, with enormous expertise, of what he speaks. We are all grateful for his service, and I hope that we can continue to make improvements to Leighton Hospital.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Some 10% of infectious people are being sent over 22 miles—some, hundreds of miles—without contact tracing, for testing, so would the Secretary of State agree that the current testing system also amounts to a spreading system for the virus?
Matt Hancock
No, because the testing sites operate, of course, in a covid-secure way; we put a huge amount of effort into the infection control procedures at testing sites. I want to reiterate, for anybody listening who has symptoms and might be worried by some of the things they are hearing, that the average distance that people go is only 6.4 miles, and that 90% of people travel less than 22 miles to get a test. If you have symptoms, please get a test.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend has said time and again this morning that if people do not have symptoms, they should not get tested, because the antigen test does not work if someone does not have symptoms. Patrick McLoughlin—a good friend of ours, now in the House of Lords—always used to say to me, “If you want to keep a secret, say it in the Chamber of the House of Commons.” How can we get this message across with some snappy title, rather like the rule of six? It is very straightforward. How can we get across the message that if people do not have symptoms, it is pointless and a waste to go and get tested?
Matt Hancock
I can think of no better way in Lichfield than to get my hon. Friend out and about making that case—in a socially distanced way, of course. He is quite right. We have to get the message across, in the first instance to Members of this House, and I hope we are doing that today. We are also making clear in the communications around the process of getting a test that, if people do not have symptoms, they are not eligible. We are reviewing what more we might need to do, because we have to use our record testing capacity for the people who need it most.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
This morning, the Transport Secretary was unable to say what enforcement powers the Prime Minister’s new covid marshals will have and what their responsibilities will be. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), does the Secretary of State know what powers these marshals will have and what training they will have to undergo?
Matt Hancock
We are giving local authorities more enforcement powers—for instance, to be able to close venues should that be necessary on public health grounds. We will set out more details of the marshals shortly.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
What revisions to the technology supporting the booking of testing can be undertaken to match local demand more closely to local supply?
Matt Hancock
That is something we work on constantly. It is not always perfect, as this questions session attests, but it is something we are constantly working on to try to minimise the distance that people travel. The team have done a good job of getting that distance down to 6.4 miles, not least with the roll-out of dozens of new testing sites every week, but there is always more work to do.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The reason why Kirklees has managed to buck the national trend and keep our infection rates relatively stable is the great work that the council has been doing with Government and other agencies. We have been working really hard in Batley to get our restrictions lifted. Coming into what could be a difficult autumn and winter, can the Secretary of State commit to keeping the extra resources—the mobile testing units—in our community, so that the R rate does not spike and we have to close down again?
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to Kirklees and colleagues who represent the seats within it, who have worked across party lines with national and local government. We have put more resources in, and they will continue for the time being when they are needed. We are, of course, driven by the data, so in a way, it would be good news if they were not needed, because that would mean that the number of cases had come down. The hon. Lady represents exactly the sort of approach that we should be taking. We are all on the same side against this virus. It is far better to be constructive and work together in a team effort. That is what the public want and expect. They do not want sniping from the sidelines, like we have seen from the Labour Front Bench.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to mass testing. In rural constituencies like mine, mobile testing units such as the one in Uckfield are key, but there seems to be a glitch in the system. A constituent called Colin, who lives in the village of Fletching, was directed miles away when he could have been directed to the local mobile unit. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the glitch is fixed?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
We know the Secretary of State is fond of technology, and we welcome that. I wonder if today he will welcome the 160,000 downloads of Protect Scotland—the app launched by the Scottish Government. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) are tracing, so if anyone shows symptoms, that will show up. When will England catch up and launch a contact tracing app similar to Protect Scotland?
Matt Hancock
It is a real pleasure to be commended on my enthusiasm for technology—normally comments about my enthusiasm are followed by a large “but”. In this case, I totally agree about the importance and use of technology, and that will be coming to English pockets very soon.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is inevitable that, with the return of our schools this week, we have seen increased demand for testing across the country, not least in my own patch of Bracknell. In true military fashion, may I ask what scope there is for flexing or surging resources at short notice. Indeed, how do we ask for it?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is a former military logistics expert, and in my experience—especially my recent experience during this crisis—there are no greater logistics experts in the world than those in the British military. He knows of what he speaks. We are surging, but doing so particularly in the areas where the case rate is higher, and thankfully in his part of the world the number of cases remains relatively low.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am sympathetic to the idea of mass testing and have been for some time, but what does the Secretary of State say to someone like Professor David Spiegelhalter, who said that mass testing could lead to hundreds of thousands of false positives, with the knock-on effect of over a million people who have been in contact with those individuals being told to self-isolate? What assessment has the Government made of that issue?
Matt Hancock
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for mass testing. He might want to have a word with his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). Of course the specificity of the test is incredibly important, so that we do not get false positives. There are ways to deal with it, and those are taken into account in the moonshot programme.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
As children return to school, there is understandable anxiety among parents in Gedling about getting ready access to testing if they require it. The head of Richard Bonington school wrote to me this morning saying that delays and difficulties accessing testing keep children away from school. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that as well as access to testing centres, parents can continue to apply for home-testing kits to get prompt results?
Matt Hancock
Someone who has symptoms can of course apply for a test in a drive-through centre or to have the home test. Of course, those are available; it is just that demand has gone up, especially demand from those who do not have symptoms. Those who do not have symptoms but have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive should not be applying for a test, because, as was mentioned earlier, they may get a false negative and actually need to self-isolate. We are really clear about who should be getting a test and who is eligible for a test. In a way, though, my hon. Friend’s question demonstrates why mass testing is also so important—it means we can roll out testing even further. The hon. Member for Leicester South used to be a great supporter of Tony Blair—
Matt Hancock
In that case, maybe he needs to have a word with the former Prime Minister. Tony Blair is a big fan of mass testing. It is a pity the hon. Gentleman does not know which way he is looking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to the job in hand. In the approach taken, there is a balance to be struck between health and ensuring that the economy is okay, so will he outline what discussions have taken place with those who have successfully implemented a different type of response to the coronavirus, such as Norway and Sweden? Does he believe that we can learn lessons and perhaps consider other approaches?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this question. We are constantly looking across the world at different approaches. Sweden, unfortunately, has had many, many more deaths from coronavirus than Norway next door, so we do look at the difference in approaches. For instance, we are looking at the difference between the response to the second rise that we have seen across parts of Europe from Spain and France as against and that of Belgium, which I mentioned earlier. We are constantly vigilant and looking abroad, and trying to find the best way not only to keep the virus under control but to support education and the economy.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State could give some advice to my constituents. One teacher had symptoms on Tuesday. She rang for a test and was told to go to Oldham, which is a 160-mile round trip. Because she has a one-year-old child, she did not want to do that and she was feeling too ill to do the drive, so she opted for a home test, which came, but she has not got the results back yet. In the same school, another teacher’s daughter was ill. She has not been able to get any test anywhere apart from it being sent. She still has not got the results.
Another school—this has come in this morning while I have been sitting here—has had 20 pupils off with covid symptoms out of a cohort of 106. One of the parents subsequently rang in to say that they had tried to book an appointment for their daughter. They spent nine hours online and were offered an appointment in Glasgow. Derbyshire is in the middle of the country and Glasgow is several hundred miles away. She turned this down, which is not a surprise, but persevered and got an appointment today at Burton. She went to Burton-on-Trent but the staff would not carry out a test as the parents do not have a barcode—a barcode that has still not been received by them. There were four booths at Burton. No one else was there using them—only this parent, his wife and their daughter. What do parents do in this situation?
Matt Hancock
If people have symptoms of coronavirus, they should self-isolate and get a test. We have heard examples—of course we have—of people having challenges getting tests. I am very glad, though, that in two of the cases that my hon. Friend outlined, home tests have been sent. In the third case, there was clearly a technical problem, given that the barcode is emailed to people who supply their email address. People with covid symptoms need to self-isolate and then, if somebody gets a positive test result, their households also have to self-isolate. These policies are absolutely critical to the control of the virus.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It has been reported that the coronavirus pandemic is leading to a second, quieter epidemic in mental health. The amazing north-east suicide prevention charity, If U Care Share, says that calls to its helpline have risen by nearly 300% during covid, and a survey of Samaritans volunteers found that callers across the country are generally more anxious and distressed than before the pandemic. Will the Secretary of State tell us what plans are in place to ensure that there is support for areas such as mine—Gateshead—before this becomes a crisis?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady is right to raise this. We are putting more support into mental health services, but there is a challenge, especially with people who were not able to access mental health services during the lockdown and therefore their condition got worse and more acute. This is an area that I am working on closely. I have had meetings with the Royal College of Psychiatrists throughout the crisis. I would also like to correct or amend a response I gave in a previous exchange, about which the hon. Lady has written to me, when I said that the number of suicides had fallen. The fact is that the number of suicides reported has fallen, but there are concerns about how many were able to be reported because of delays with coroners. I just want to put on record my correction to that fact, in acknowledgement of the problems in reporting. I reported on the figures as fact, but we should report that those figures are the reported facts.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is there no scintilla of doubt in my right hon. Friend’s mind, occasioned by the growing body of scientific opinion that questions the interpretation of the data and concludes that the policies of Governments—I use the plural—are having an impact worse than the disease itself?
Matt Hancock
I am afraid to say that, although I would love my right hon. Friend to be right, I firmly believe, based not only on the clinical advice but on my own analysis and judgment of the facts and the international comparisons, that it is necessary for the public health of the nation to take actions to control the spread of the disease and to take the firm and now legislative actions that we are taking. The reason is that if the virus spreads, we know that it then spreads into the older age group, who too often die from this disease. We also know that it does not just go up in a straight line, and that if we let this disease rip, it goes up exponentially. That is why, with a heavy heart, I strongly support the extra measures that the Prime Minister outlined yesterday and the strategy of this Government and most Governments around the world to handle this pandemic.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Nobody pretends that this is easy, but there are real problems in the system. The latest figures for test and trace in England are now out, and they are the worst figures since it started. The numbers have actually gone down since last week. That is the fact, I am afraid. The Secretary of State might not have seen the latest figures. In relation to testing, my constituents have, ironically enough, been told to go to Derbyshire, Aberdeen, Weston-super-Mare and all sorts of places. Considering that we have one of the lowest car ownership rates in the whole of the UK, it is difficult for many people to go at all, if they are not allowed to use public transport and do not have much money and cannot afford a taxi to go to Aberdeen or Derbyshire. Given the number of times that my constituents have been told, including today, either when they ring or when they use the website that there are simply no tests available at all anywhere in the whole of the United Kingdom, this is a shocking problem that we all need to address. I just hope that the Secretary of State will please, please, please stop with all the huffing and puffing and simply get on with trying to solve these problems. Our constituents are really worried that they are not able to do the right thing, and if people stop doing the right thing we will lose control of this completely.
Matt Hancock
That is exactly what I am trying to do, and I appreciate the tone in which the hon. Gentleman asked the question. To be clear about the data on contact tracing that have just been released, on the number of people who have provided details of one or more close contacts, we reached 82.0% of those in the last week up to 2 September, which was up from 79.9% in the previous week.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Care homes in my constituency are allowing family visits in their gardens. However, they are concerned that the weather is about to turn. What is my right hon. Friend’s advice to my care homes?
Matt Hancock
The challenge of how to keep people in care homes safe is a really tough one, because visits to care homes are important not only for our wellbeing and our desire to see our loved ones but for the mental and physical health of those who are in the care homes. However, we also need to protect them from the disease, because they are among the most vulnerable to it in the whole of society. There are covid-secure ways to have visits to care homes, including indoors. Again, once we get to a position of mass testing, this is the sort of thing we will be able to deliver in order to enhance that support and make it easier. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this, and it is something that I long to be able to provide a solution to.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I agree with the Secretary of State on the importance of mass testing. However, I am afraid to say that a number of residents in Ceredigion are being directed, under the current system, to travel much further than the 6.4-mile average he referred to in his statement. Indeed, in some instances they have been asked to travel as far away as Birmingham, over 100 miles away, while we know that Londoners are being told, in turn, to travel to Aberystwyth to get their tests. My question is a simple one: how does he intend to work with the Welsh Government to address this problem?
Matt Hancock
The solution, as I have mentioned a few times this afternoon, is to ensure that we continue the expansion of capacity—as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is now record capacity in the testing system—and, at the same time, ensure that those who are eligible for tests come forward to get those tests. Some people have been asked to travel, but the vast majority of people get tests close to home and get the results back very quickly.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Whether on vaccines or testing, British scientists have been at the forefront of our efforts against this pandemic. I am very pleased that GlaxoSmithKline in Barnard Castle is playing its part, working with the Government on this national effort. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to also consider working with Honeyman Group, which is also Barnard Castle based? At the moment it has the potential capacity to deliver up to 10,000 tests per day and I know it is very keen to work with us.
Matt Hancock
Excellent. I would love to work with the companies my hon. Friend mentions and work with her on trying to make that happen.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
With the six-person rule not coming in until Monday, that effectively gives people encouragement to have large gatherings of up to 30 people in their households over the weekend. That is clearly a risk when there is, at the moment, an increase in the spread of the virus. It also means that it is even more important that the Government have the best test, track and trace systems in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) pointed out, the Scottish Government have already got the Protect Scotland mobile app up and running. That has been used by 160,000 people already. When oh when will the Secretary of State and his Government have their tracing app in place?
Matt Hancock
Very soon. As the UK Secretary of State, I urge all people in Scotland to download the app. I know that the Scottish Government’s app is technically excellent and I strongly endorse it, as I will strongly endorse people in England to download the English app, people in Wales to download the Welsh app and people in Northern Ireland to download the Northern Ireland app to support the whole of the UK to do everything we all can to tackle this problem.
Points of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first start by thanking the Secretary of State for putting some of the record straight about the suicide figures for the first quarter of this year? However, he will know that I also asked him to confirm that the suicide figures for the last full year, 2019, have, sadly, risen. I think it is important that we get that on the record as well.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I am happy for that to stand on the record.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government announced the business for the next fortnight earlier today. As you know, the Committee on Standards, which I chair, has seven lay members and seven Members of this House sitting on it. We have been missing two members, because appointments were meant to have been made by now. I do not know why the House Commission delayed that for a considerable period of time, but they have now gone through the Commission. It would seem that we still have no sign of the motion before the House for another two weeks, which makes it really difficult for the Committee on Standards to do its job properly. We have important issues to debate and to deal with. I just wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could kick some shins somewhere in Government to make sure we get that motion, so that these people can be appointed. They are desperate to start the work and it all seems a bit unfair on them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I cannot promise to kick shins; I always find that the use of the stiletto heel works better, but I do not intend to do that either. I do appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and he is right to make it in the Chamber. I will make sure that Mr Speaker is aware of his very reasonable concerns, and I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will let the Leader of the House know of them. [Interruption.] I got a nod from the Whip, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). It is vital that a Committee such as the Standards Committee is able to carry out its work properly, and the House ought to facilitate that.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow people to leave safely and carefully.
Climate Assembly UK
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Darren Jones will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Darren Jones to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once, of course. Interventions should be questions and should be brief.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
This morning, I had the privilege of launching the report of Climate Assembly UK, “The path to net zero”, along with the Chairs of the five other Select Committees that commissioned the citizens assembly back in 2019. This afternoon, as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I am launching a high-level inquiry into the findings of this groundbreaking report. I am keen, as I know other members and Committee Chairs are, that we take forward the work of the climate assembly by examining the policies that can deliver on net zero and provide solutions that are fair and equitable.
This major inquiry on the BEIS Committee will take a two-pronged approach. First, we will launch an overarching inquiry into the findings of the assembly in order to review, on a regular basis, the Government’s engagement and interaction with the findings of the assembly and progress in implementing its proposals. We will do this by monitoring progress in relation to this important piece of work and working in close collaboration with the other Committees that commissioned the climate assembly.
Secondly, and in addition, the Committee will mainstream the work of the climate assembly. We will undertake detailed scrutiny of its proposals within the context of other existing and future inquiries. For example, the BEIS Committee is currently undertaking work on net zero and COP26 and we will shortly announce details of a series of new energy and climate change inquiries that we have selected following our recent My BEIS inquiry, which will focus directly on some of the energy recommendations put forward in the assembly’s report. We will also examine issues around net zero and the green recovery during the course of our post-pandemic economic growth inquiry.
The findings of the climate assembly will therefore shape and inform the Committee’s programme of inquiries for the duration of this Parliament. I know that other Select Committees are considering how to use and take forward the findings of the assembly’s report and will no doubt have further announcements in due course.
Just to put the assembly report into context, it may be helpful to remind the House of its origins. More than 10 years ago, the House passed the Climate Change Act 2008. It has since declared a climate emergency and set a statutory target to reach net zero by 2050. We have already provided international leadership on decarbonisation, but the pace of reform has slowed and we must get back to business. But meeting a challenge of this nature and this scale is clearly going to affect the lives of every citizen, organisation and community across our country. So everybody needs to understand why they are being asked to take action and what changes will need to be made, from how we eat to what we buy, how we heat our homes, how we do business and how we travel. This is exactly why the six Select Committees came together to establish this first ever UK-wide citizens assembly on climate change—an example of this House leading the public debate, but on the basis of informed public perceptions.
This report is a unique body of evidence for us in Parliament and for Ministers in Government to understand the public’s preferences in how we reach net zero, and it is a timely and important reminder of the public’s expectation that we do so. To avoid any misconceptions, I should stress that the citizens assembly is not a simple opinion poll or a lengthy focus group. It is entirely different. This assembly involved 108 citizens, precisely reflective of the composition of the UK population, including on attitudes to climate change, sitting down together, learning about the issues in depth, considering a whole range of viewpoints and taking into account their own values and lived experiences to come to a consensus on how we should act on climate change. Rather than being spoon-fed questions which they had to respond to, assembly members were asked to come up with their own principles to underpin their approach, to define for themselves what they thought was fair, and to make compromises and trade-offs in a way that could be acceptable and supported by most people.
The report, therefore, has a wealth of detail across a range of policy areas, and I encourage hon. Members from across the House to read the executive summary to get a sense of the expectations that the British people have of us. The full report, which runs to 500 pages, provides granular detail and insight about the rationale behind the policy recommendations and the conditions attached to them. It provides a strong emphasis on some core principles that run throughout the policy recommendations, informing and educating everyone being a priority. Public, industry and individuals in Government have a shared responsibility to act. Then there is fairness across the whole of the United Kingdom, including for the most vulnerable, on issues of affordability, jobs, balancing the regions and nations, incentives and rewards—in actions, not just in words. Those adversely affected by the transition should not lose out—it should be a just transition and benefits should be shared by all of us. There is a call for strong leadership from Government and a strong demand for a cross-party approach to meeting the targets. Last was the principle to remind us all that protecting and restoring the natural world is as important as decisions on infrastructure, or consumer or business behaviour.
As a package, the assembly report provides us with guidance, but it is our job as politicians and as Ministers in Government to craft the policies and to implement them. It is therefore now upon us, with this report delivered and the assembly concluded, in our Committees and in our Parliament, with officials and Ministers in Government, to turn the conclusions into clear legislation, policies and funding decisions.
I was struck in the report by the assembly’s degree of consensus on so many very difficult issues, with clear steers on a direction of travel and a willingness to make that journey together. It showed the pragmatic attitude of the British people to get on with taking the actions that are absolutely required of us. I take from this report that people are willing to be led towards a net zero Britain, but it is now for the Government to take action. The call is for the Government to lead, to explain why we need to act and to map out a route that meets the scale of the challenge—a route that is achievable and, in line with the report, seeks the popular consent of the British people. That should be built upon open, collaborative, cross-party consensus.
Let us take this unique body of work as a template for action, a signal of what is achievable and an opportunity for the UK to not only build back better domestically in our own country, but to show the world how it can be done. I look forward to reporting back on the work of my Committee. I congratulate and commend all the assembly members and the staff involved in putting together this groundbreaking piece of work. I commend Climate Assembly UK’s report, “The path to net zero”, to the House.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s statement. I agree with him that the report is a very fine report. I think there are two reasons this project has been so powerful: one is the nature of the attendees at this assembly and how they were selected, being representative of the whole country; and, second is the proportionate nature of the recommendations made within the report. Does he agree that the considered, measured and tolerant approach that has been adopted is a good example for all those individuals and groups who wish to contribute to the climate change debate?
Darren Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I think the point he makes is really important because, for some in this debate, calls for action on climate change are demeaned as being from activists or not being supported by the British people. The citizens assembly report shows that these are pragmatic, considered and evidence-based decisions with support from the whole cross-section of the United Kingdom. That should give Ministers the confidence to take action in line with the recommendations in the report, and I know that it gives the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee, as well as the rest of us, the confidence to hold the Government to account very strongly in bringing forward those policies.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This has been a fantastic initiative. It is obviously important that politicians take the report and its recommendations seriously. One important theme in the report is consumer fairness. It is crystal clear that we need to be fair to consumers, which means more direct investment in heat decarbonisation and energy efficiency from the Government, but it also means greater consumer protections. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that that means learning from mistakes, such as the green deal mis-selling from companies such as Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems, or HELMS? We need to look at those mistakes, learn from them, make recommendations to improve consumer protections and get that fairness for consumers as we go forward to net zero.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his continued work on consumer protection, which I know he advocates for on the Committee that I chair, of which I am grateful he is a member. He will know, and Ministers will know, that we have written to the Secretary of State on the energy efficiency programme brought forward by the Government. The consensus in the citizens assembly report is that we need to take these actions, but that that should be done with clear, strong leadership from the top that puts fairness and equity at the heart while providing the choice that consumers need from providers and different technologies in the home. We also need to ensure that there is protection and enforcement on the end of that, should things go wrong. I know that Ministers are considering those issues. They have brought forward the TrustMark for the energy efficiency programme, and I know that we will continue to ensure that consumer protection and fairness to consumers is at the heart of the Government’s response.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on presenting the report today and I look forward to working with him on this on the Select Committee. One of the themes that has come out is that of course the environment is key but so is ensuring that the economy is well managed. Does the right hon. Member—I mean, the hon. Member—agree that covid has had a financial impact on the business sector and that we will need to do more to help businesses to help us to achieve net zero?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for my elevation to the Privy Council, for which one can only hope. I agree absolutely that the consensus in the report and in our conversations on the Committee is that our economic recovery from the pandemic and our transition to net zero are no longer distinct issues but one and the same. They have to be embedded, and that requires Government to work in partnership with business. Some sectors will be affected more than others, and it will be difficult for some important parts of the British economy to make these changes, but I am confident that we can make them together. I know we will do that work on the Committee and bring forward proposals for the Government to do so.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
If we are to meet net zero, including targets on the electrification of transport and the decarbonisation of heating, either by electricity or by hydrogen produced by electricity, as the citizens assembly highlighted, we will need a lot of power, but not all of this can come from intermittent renewables. Does my hon. Friend agree it is time for the Government to get serious and set out plans for all the low-carbon generation we will need, including nuclear, which provides high-skilled jobs for his constituents and mine?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that she represents many workers in the nuclear sector in her constituency and why that is an important issue to raise. The citizens assembly report made it clear that the energy mix is something that the public have clear views on, and I am sure they have the same anticipation as we do in the House for the arrival of the energy White Paper, which I am promised is due in advance of the Budget in the coming weeks, at which point we will get into these issues. It was clear from the citizens assembly report that there is a preference for onshore and offshore wind and solar, but a recognition that that has to come with investment in our network, our storage and our flexibility capacity and that, until we do that, there is absolutely a preference for low-carbon sources of energy.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry. Does he agree that the fairness aspect of the report is particularly important? People are sometimes put off by the idea that the affluent are telling those on low incomes that everything about their lifestyle is wrong—where they work, what they drive, where they go on holiday. There needs to be a greater understanding that some people might like to make certain changes but do not have the means to do so at the moment.
Darren Jones
This is really very important. A member of the Committee asked the assembly in a private briefing this week how they defined fairness. The answer is really important because it was defined by the assembly members—they were not given a definition—and because the assembly represented a plethora of different types of people across the country—rich, poor, different locations, different levels of education, maybe activists and campaigners on climate change, maybe people sceptical of climate change. They came to that consensus on what fairness means and see no reason why we cannot deliver that through all our policies.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He was launching the report at the same time as DEFRA questions this morning, so will not have seen the Government Front-Bench response, which I thought was slightly disappointing in treating it as just another report. One of the top issues in terms of pure policy in the report is protecting and restoring the natural world, which is very timely given the Living Planet report. Does he agree that we are only going to tackle that with international co-operation, which is why it is so very important that we abide by international law and rules?
Darren Jones
I did not see the DEFRA Secretary’s answer, but I would be disappointed if that was the case. I wonder whether he has not read the cross-departmental memo, given the comments of the BEIS Secretary this morning at the launch, who welcomed the report as an important and substantive contribution to Government thinking. We should remember, of course, that BEIS has the responsibility to co-ordinate net zero decarbonisation across every Department, including DEFRA, so perhaps the BEIS and DEFRA Secretaries could talk about the importance of this report.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party group on net zero, I thank my hon. Friend and the other Select Committee Chairs for commissioning the citizens assembly and for the holistic and well-rounded nature of the report. Citizens assemblies could form an important part of our pre-legislative scrutiny and policy making in Parliament. Does he agree that we should utilise citizens assemblies much more widely in the House?
Darren Jones
I note my hon. Friend’s long-held action in this area, both before and during his time in Parliament. I congratulate him on his all-party parliamentary group, which is making an important contribution to the debate here in Westminster. This is the first time that we have had a UK-wide citizens assembly and it was on the really complicated topic of climate change, but that has shown that it works. A citizens assembly brings people together in a consensus-building fashion to understand the trade-offs and to come forward with proposals that people are happy with. I endorse my hon. Friend’s suggestion that we look at these models—perhaps not just in Westminster, but in local government. In my city of Bristol, we are hoping to reinstate such activity after the pandemic as a way to bring people with us and to ensure that we really understand the ambitions of the British people. This report is an example of where the British ambition is for very strong action, and that should give the Government confidence in acting.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I note the importance placed in the report on cross-party working to ensure that these actions are supported in the long term, so let me take this opportunity, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, to pledge our support in delivering the recommendations of the report, all of which we completely endorse. Does the hon. Member agree that the biggest impact on achieving net zero will be made by the actions that are taken soonest, and would he tell me what he thinks is the most important action that the Government need to take now to help us to achieve this goal?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and her pledge of support on behalf of the Liberal Democrats for the call for cross-party consensus on tackling climate change, which the Labour party also supports. On her question about the most immediate action, this autumn and winter is the most important period of time in dealing with this issue; not only do we have to borrow and spend significant amounts of money due to the economic consequences of the pandemic, but we are also waiting for key policies from the Government—from the energy White Paper to the net zero review, through to the Treasury review on green finance, the heating in buildings regulations and so many other things that are all due to come together in the next few months. Now is the opportunity for the Government to bring all that together and to set out a progressive set of policies to meet the scale of the challenge, which I am sure will be in line with the principles of the climate assembly report.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The report expresses some concerns over the potential robustness of carbon capture and undersea storage, although not perhaps as a way of achieving the transition to net zero. In 2019, the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee said that it did not believe that the UK would be able to meet its Paris obligations without applying CCUS. Does the hon. Member think that this remains the case or does he agree that the UK should continue to pursue this technology over three or four sites, and would he agree that one of those should be at St Fergus in the north-east of Scotland?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion that I have any influence over the location of these sites. Unfortunately, I have to break it to him that I do not. Carbon capture and storage was an interesting debate in the climate assembly report because CCS is a little further ahead compared to other negative emissions technologies in proving its capabilities in research and scaling up into industrial settings. Assembly members felt that it was a way to slow down the action we need to take on other renewable sources of energy, and were concerned about issues such as the leakage and storage of carbon in the use of these technologies. That is why they down-prioritised it compared to wind or solar. It is important to note that the assembly was unable to consider issues such as tidal power because the research is not in the right place to be able to do so comprehensively. We quickly need to understand the capacity of carbon capture and storage for scaling up and meeting needs, but we should also recognise that we must prioritise an urgent speed-up in the use of clean renewable technologies, and in my view carbon capture and storage is only a temporary solution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow the safe exit of Members who are here for this business and entrance of those who await the next business.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Aviation Sector
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we come to the Backbench Business Committee debate on the aviation sector, as must be obvious to the House, 59 Back Benchers wish to speak and it will not be possible to get everyone in. Eventually, there will be a time limit of three minutes, but we will start on the Back Benches—not of course the hon. Gentleman, the mover of the motion—with a limit of five minutes. Very soon, that will reduce to three minutes. I give the warning now, so that people may edit their copious notes.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the aviation sector.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to open this debate, which I do on behalf of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I thank the Backbench Business Committee, the Petitions Committee and my own Select Committee on Transport for making this debate happen.
To frame the debate, I will talk about the current aviation picture, the Government’s welcome interventions, what more the Government can and should do, the jobs at risk in the aviation sector, and passenger and consumer rights. I am happy to take interventions, as stated, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members to remember that they will be within my time limit, so perhaps they could make them snappy.
Let us talk about the current picture. The aviation network in the UK is the third largest in the world and the largest in Europe. It is a sector that we should all be proud of. As a nation—an island nation—we have travelled the world, explored the world, sent our entrepreneurs around the world and brought people to us. I say to the Government that the aviation sector is vital, not just from a business perspective but from a strategic angle. It is worth £28 billion to the UK economy. It employs 230,000 people directly, and for each one of those, 4.7 more jobs are created in the supply chain or the passenger experience.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for helping, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), to get this debate. Does he agree that the national picture that he describes of job losses and the impact on the supply chain also has an impact on local areas where airports are a major part of the local economy? Does he agree that it would be worth the Government considering not just sector-specific support but specific short-term area-based support for the aviation communities that have been very badly hit at this time?
Huw Merriman
My fellow member of the Transport Committee is absolutely right. We should bear in mind what has happened to passenger numbers. Numbers in April this year compared with April last year were down by 97%. To put that in focus, that means 5,800 flights whereas we previously had 201,000. It has been an absolute collapse. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight not just the impact on aviation but on communities that work in it or indeed support it from a retail perspective.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward and for giving me the chance to ask a question as well. The sector is worth some £1.9 billion to the economy of Northern Ireland. It is also very important strategically for the jobs it creates, and equally relevant to the other regions. Does he agree that there must be a meaningful sector-specific programme for aerospace from 1 November this year that recognises not only the centrality of technology and development in terms of the upcoming comprehensive spending review, but the decades-long challenge we have in improving productivity and skills retention and development. All the areas—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and parts of England—must work together and focus on the Minister to get the help that we need, for all those reasons.
Huw Merriman
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his contribution. He is absolutely right. Perhaps this is where I should put in my asks with the new Minister, who I absolutely welcome to the Dispatch Box. Yesterday was his first day in front of the Transport Committee and today is his first day at the Dispatch Box. It has been a busy week for him already, with more to come.
Huw Merriman
Before I take any further interventions I will make a little more progress.
The airports have already lost £2 billion just in the first few months, and they expect to lose another £4 billion as well. I would like to put on record my thanks to this Government for the £330 billion injection into businesses to keep them going. That has meant that 9 million people have been able to stay in employment through the furlough scheme. But of course I am going to stand here and ask for more, as is always the annoying case for Ministers with Back Benchers.
Huw Merriman
I will take some more interventions in a moment.
I would like the Government to look at the aviation sector specifically. I say this because the Government—and I do understand this—have brought in quarantine to keep us healthy and safe in travelling to these countries. That is the right thing to do—a nuance-based approach to ensure that where it is safe to travel we can do so on air bridges and not quarantine for 14 days. None the less, that intervention does have an impact on aviation, and that justifies more Government support. In addition, testing is happening in other parts of the world. The Government have not yet brought testing forward. I very much hope that during the quarantine period we can allow people to take a test and then come off quarantine. That may well be later in the process, but I would like to see that measure.
Those interventions from Government, which the aviation sector would say intervene on its ability to keep going, justify a sector-specific deal. I would like an extension of the furlough scheme for aviation. I would like a complete cut of air passenger duty for a period, which EasyJet says would allow 60% of national flights to continue. I would like a business rate cessation to be brought forward as the Scottish Government have done. I would like to see those measures from the Government in return for our continued approach on quarantine and testing.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. As well as asking for a greater financial package, does he believe that the Government need to work much more closely with our airports, particularly Gatwick and Heathrow? They are proposing testing and screening that will help our aviation sector to get to where it needs to be considering where we are with covid and the economy.
Huw Merriman
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. As she and I know, Gatwick is the jewel in our crown in the south-east. Many of our constituents rely on it for good, well-paid jobs, but it is looking at staff reductions of 25%, which worries me greatly.
Huw Merriman
I will, of course, take an intervention from my hon. Friend—the hon. Lady who is a previous Chair of the Transport Committee.
Lilian Greenwood
I hope that we are also hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the intervention and support required from the Government. A few moments ago we heard about the report from Climate Assembly UK that was launched today, which includes bold recommendations about the future of aviation and our route to net zero 2050. Does he agree that taxpayer support for the sector should be conditional on action to both protect workers and to cut emissions, as we transition to a more sustainable future for the aviation sector?
Huw Merriman
I thank my predecessor for all the amazing work she did on the Transport Committee, as well as today with the climate change report. She is absolutely right. When the Government bring out their sector renewal programme for aviation—I hope we will hear more from the Minister on that—I hope we will see incentives for greening aviation. That must be the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Huw Merriman
I will make a little more progress as I have only a few minutes left, and I might then take one or two more interventions. I wish, certainly from the Government Benches, to touch on the opportunity for more competition in the market. If airlines are not going to expand, and if they are to cut their workforce drastically, I would like the way that we allocate slots at our airports to be changed dramatically. If companies such as British Airways do not have the staff to continue to utilise the slots—hon. Members should bear in mind that from a legacy perspective BA has 51% of Heathrow slots—I would like those slots to be auctioned to new entrants to the market, so that we can make more money and see a bit more responsibility. Those are good free-market principles, and once we leave the European Union, we can start to make such changes. I know we are somewhat bound by IATA rules, but so is the US and it still makes its own rules. I urge the Government to look at the competition argument for slot reallocation.
Jobs and redundancies are a huge worry, and 30,000 jobs in the aviation sector have already been directly put at risk. Virgin and Ryanair have each suffered 3,500 job losses, and easyJet has lost 4,500. The Transport Committee report made clear that redundancies were inevitable with such a drop in passenger numbers, but I am afraid I must make a special mention of British Airways, our national flag carrier. Of its 42,000 staff, 12,000 jobs have been put at risk. Across the board, those members of staff were given the option of taking voluntary redundancy, and if they did not sign a settlement agreement they would lose their staff travel allowance, or they had effectively to reapply for their old jobs on terms that had not been set out. That was a big Russian roulette gamble for them and a big risk. If they did not agree to voluntary redundancy they could be looking at reductions in terms and conditions at more than 50%. For them not to even know those conditions when being given such a choice is, in my view, absolutely shoddy treatment, especially at a time when British Airways’ parent company, International Airlines Group, is looking to spend €1 billion on a new airliner, and 66% of its profits was put in by British Airways staff.
The reason there is so much suspicion about the behaviour of British Airways is because this restructuring has been tried before. This was dusted off, and there is a perception and a feeling, and I think the evidence, that the pandemic has provided the perfect backdrop for BA to start paying its staff on low-cost terms. If that is the case, why do I have pay premium for that to occur?
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that premium brands are built on people, and it is incumbent on companies that aspire to be a premium brand to treat their people in a way consistent with that?
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend is right. Across the House we expect the best from our premium brands if they are to be our flag carriers. If a company is saying to its staff, “You might be required to allow us to put you out of work for eight-weeks during the year without pay”—that is two months—“and at other times we might effectively put you on furlough without pay”, how on earth is a member of staff supposed to react?
What I would say before I take one more intervention—[Interruption.] I will not take another intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I see an opportunity for British Airways here. It is fair to say that the new chief executive, Luis Gallego, is a thoughtful and reasonable man who is two days into his job. I do not believe he will have the same scorched earth approach to industrial relations as his predecessor. There is still time, because these terms have not yet come out, for British Airways to do the right thing. Perhaps it will do what Ryanair has done and said, “There is a 20% pay cut across the board, for everybody. That pay will be returned when better times come.” We know that our aviation sector has better times to come. I say to IAG’s chief executive: it is not too late, you still have time to do the right thing and protect your workforce and your brand. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I give way completely and allow the debate to continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and for understanding that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. We will therefore begin with a time limit of five minutes, and I call Abena Oppong-Asare.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have been able to secure my first Backbench Business debate on the future of the aviation sector, alongside the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I am shocked that the Government did not deem it necessary to bring forward this debate at such a crucial time on this issue, but I am glad to see a high turnout of MPs, from across the House, wanting to contribute to this debate. I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), for his work in supporting the aviation industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for the work she has done to support workers in Pontypridd who are facing the risk of redundancy.
The aviation sector supports 1.6 million jobs across the UK and contributes £22 billion to the economy. It should have come as no surprise to the Government, as passenger numbers dropped by 97%, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned, and as overall air traffic was reduced by 90% during the covid-19 lockdown, that the aviation industry would need industry-specific support. Once again, the Government’s lack of preparedness has resulted in a number of devastating consequences for my constituency and others across the UK. Along with my hon. Friends, I have been calling on the Government to provide bail-outs to support the aviation sector and, above all, the people they are supposed to represent, who are at risk of losing their jobs and livelihoods.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a crucial argument. She will know just how many jobs are under threat in south Wales, particularly at British Airways in the Vale of Glamorgan and at other aerospace companies. Does she agree that the Government need not only to take action on jobs now, but to offer support to help young people training at Cardiff and Vale College for future careers in aerospace and green aviation? The Government need to give them some hope, as well as saving jobs now.
Abena Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I completely support, and I am going to cover that much further in my speech. He mentions British Airways, which has announced that it wants to cut 12,000 jobs. Some 6,000 of its overall workforce have already taken voluntary redundancy, with many claiming that they have been pressured by scare tactics such as a fire and rehire policy. Those redundancies were announced five months ago, in April, yet the Government have still failed to protect its workers. Since the announcement, many more have followed: easyJet is planning to cut 4,500 staff; Jet2 has made more than 100 pilots redundant; Virgin Atlantic has made more than 3,000 staff redundant, including 47% of its pilots; and Flybe, the largest operator in the UK of domestic flights, has gone into administration, leaving 2,000 people without jobs. I could continue, but I am sure that the Government are well aware that an estimated 110,000 airport or airport-related jobs are at risk. I have been contacted by operators in the aviation sector who have warned me that the sector can no longer weather the impacts of further inaction.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about airport operators. In my patch, I have been in regular contact with the operator of Luton airport, which is responsible directly and indirectly for 11,000 jobs in Luton that are potentially at risk. But this is not only about jobs. It is also about the important revenue streams that come from the airport into Luton Council and wider voluntary and charitable organisations. Do you agree that part of this debate is about those vital revenue streams, as well as jobs?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is an intervention, not a speech, and Members must refer to one another as “the hon. Member”, not “you”.
Abena Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, which I completely support, and it echoes the conversations that I have had with operators in the aviation sector.
The obvious inaction has been noticed across the industry, and while some employers have a will to act in their employees’ best interests, that is not possible without a support package. One employer contacted me to clarify that, while the Government repeatedly refer to the package of support that aviation has had, the specific nature of industry concerns have not been recognised at all. My colleagues and I have made it clear to employers and businesses, and I will re-emphasise it to the Government today, that we want to work in collaboration with all those affected to ensure that a plan can be put in place to secure the future of the industry. This debate is not about political point scoring. It is about holding the Government to account where they have failed the best interests of people across the UK.
My colleagues on the shadow Front Bench have worked with unions and other stakeholders to produce a policy position that can help to protect jobs, the wider supply chain and the environment. I urge the Government to listen to the recommendations that have come from within the industry to implement a robust plan and to provide a bail-out package to the aviation sector.
I also urge the Government to consider taking action on recommendations from industry leaders. The first is the need for the introduction of airport testing to minimise the need for mandatory 14-day self-isolation. It is clear to all now that the risk posed by covid-19 will not be eliminated in the immediate future, but when cases do begin to fall again—and they will—we must have a system in place to encourage the economy to immediately reopen. Passengers have been discouraged from travelling because they know they will have to quarantine for 14 days upon arrival back in the UK, even if they test negative for covid-19. The blanket quarantine rules are another reflection of the Government’s lack of preparedness as more infections were traced back to different travel destinations, to which the Government responded with a short-sighted and damaging policy.
This is why I am calling on the Government to work with businesses to produce a clear commitment to tackling climate change and investing to make the use of cleaner fuels and other low or zero-emission technologies viable options for businesses. If the Government truly want us to be the world leader, we must start acting like one. Direct emissions from aviation account for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The threat to our planet, our country and our constituencies from climate change is ever growing.
Covid-19 has caused businesses and individuals to operate differently, as we are forced to come up with creative solutions to problems that we did not expect to face. We should take this opportunity to factor in the wider issues that urgently need tackling. The aviation sector has been impacted by measures relating to covid-19 in a very specific but not limited way. The entire industry and my colleagues on the Opposition Benches are ready to work with the Government to develop a plan for the future, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport and the Prime Minister are ready to engage in the urgently needed discussion.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), to his place. In one sense, I welcome this debate, because it gives an opportunity for us all across the House to point out how important the aviation sector is to our economy, to jobs and, indeed, to global Britain. In another sense, I am rather sorry that we are having to have this debate, because it suggests that the Government have not quite yet got the message about the importance of the aviation sector.
Before I come to my main point, I wish to pick up on one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who referred to the British Airways situation. I have constituents affected by the British Airways decisions, about which I have had concerns that I have raised with the company, but I also have constituents who will be losing jobs at other airlines and at Heathrow airport itself. That is an impact of the rapid reduction in the number of people who are flying around the world. The best way to ensure that those people have jobs and to support those jobs is to get planes flying again. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the air bridges—that was a positive move—but I fear that the air bridges have increased not certainty but uncertainty for people, because of the constant changes that have taken place, sometimes within 24 hours.
Although I have some concerns about the air bridge policy, I wish to focus on testing, and I welcome what the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) said about the importance of testing. First, let me set out the background. This is an important point: stopping people flying into the UK is not going to mean that there is no virus here in the UK—the virus is here; we are going to continue to have cases of covid and will have more cases in the coming months—but it does mean job losses and a negative impact on our economy. Passenger numbers at Heathrow have fallen by 82% and cargo is down 35%. It is reckoned that for every 1,000 passengers, one job is created. The fewer passengers, the fewer jobs. Cargo is also important, particularly for the UK as we are looking to improve our trading relationships around the world, and a lot of cargo is carried on passenger flights.
Sadly, there are those who say that if we want to promote testing and therefore reduce quarantine and increase the number of flights, we are putting public health at risk and putting the economy first. This is not an either/or situation; it is about assessing the proportionate risks. It is about mitigating the risk of people coming into the UK with the virus while at the same time reducing the risk of a damaging impact on the economy. I am certain that testing has to be the way forward in the foreseeable future, but at the moment airports are not even permitted to trial tests on passengers.
It is incredibly important that, far from leading the world, the UK is lagging behind. Japan has been testing since April, and Germany, France, Austria and Iceland all have testing, which variously reduces the quarantine period or means that people can abandon it. In all, 30 countries have testing facilities at their airports. British companies, with their ingenuity, have been developing new rapid tests—TravelSafe Systems recently demonstrated one to me in a GP surgery in my constituency. The infrastructure is there and the testing capability is there and being advanced as we speak.
Crucially, trials would provide data. Currently, decisions are taken on the basis of modelling, which has not proved itself to be infallible during this pandemic. Real data would be much a better basis for making decisions. The Government’s position currently appears to be that if there is a risk with testing that one person has a false negative, we cannot test anybody. That is a counsel of perfection and it is wrong. We have to see testing introduced in our airports. We are talking about not a single test to abandon all quarantine, but possibly a test on arrival and a test a few days later to reduce the quarantine period.
I am sorry that the Minister finds himself responding to this debate, because I think the DFT gets this, so my message is to No. 10, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care, and it is a simple one: if we want to get the economy moving, and if we want to get planes flying again, give airports permission to trial tests. Stop the UK dragging its feet; let us lead the world and set the standard to restore world travel and world trade.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
General Electric Aviation Wales, in Nantgarw, near Caerphilly, it is one of the most important employers in south Wales. It employs 1,400 people, has an excellent apprenticeship scheme and is recognised as one of the key anchor companies in the whole of Wales. As the site maintains and overhauls jet engines from 90 airlines around the world, it has been hit hard by the contraction in air travel. In the late spring, the company announced 180 voluntary redundancies. That was a serious blow, but at the beginning of July the company announced the loss of 369 jobs—quality, highly skilled jobs that neither the company nor, indeed, south Wales can afford to lose.
The Welsh Government are doing their utmost to be supportive, but what is really needed today is for the Westminster Government to be proactive, especially with regard to extending the furlough scheme. This would not be a long-term measure, because there will be an upturn in the number of flights and there is absolutely no doubt about the effectiveness and efficiency of the Nantgarw site. In fact, in early 2017 Nantgarw was selected, after intense competition, as the site to repair and overhaul the GE9X, the world’s largest and most efficient jet engine.
If the Government do not give the necessary support to General Electric in Nantgarw, this will be in sharp contrast to what is happening in so many other countries. In France, Germany and Italy, for example, there is great Government support for the aviation industry. The Governments of those countries are giving massive support to their companies, because they realise that it is a very necessary investment.
Let me be clear that if the Government do not support the sector, and Nantgarw in particular, when jet engines need maintenance, the sector will again be at a huge competitive disadvantage. Once skilled jobs are lost, they are extremely difficult to replace.
So I ask the Government to please step up to the plate and do what is necessary. They must come forward immediately with a comprehensive support package for the sector. In particular, they need to support furlough.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
May I start by welcoming the Minister to his post? He is a welcome addition to the Department for Transport team. When I left the Department 14 months ago, I resolved that I would not speak in this place about transport issues for a while, because it felt appropriate not to tread on the toes of my successor. I am here today because I believe passionately that this is an issue that must be addressed, and quickly. This is a crucial industry not just at our airports, but across our country for a whole range of businesses and a whole of people whose livelihood depends upon it.
I echo the comments of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), on the importance of testing. This has to be the way forward. It is vital for the industry not only that we get short-haul flights moving again, but that we open up transatlantic routes, which are fundamentally important to the industry. We can only do that through testing. I cannot understand why we are not at the very least trailing testing on a number of routes to demonstrate where the issues are. My message to the Minister—and, through him, to all those on the Treasury Bench, in No. 10, in No. 11 and elsewhere in Government—is that we have got to do this, and we have got to do it now. There is absolutely no reason why a regime of trial testing in this country could not be introduced in a few days, or why the results could not be carefully monitored on selected routes to give us a blueprint to take things forward. We must do this, and we must do it now.
We also have the issue of our airports. Our airports, and many of the businesses that support them, are operating at a fraction of their normal capacity because the Government are telling them that they have to do so. In that situation, we cannot apply the normal regulatory regime. For example, we cannot tell our airports to pay their full business rates when the Government are telling them not to operate their business. This autumn we have to take a pragmatic and realistic approach for the businesses affected.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that much of the real pain of this situation will be felt by our smaller regional airports across the country, which will play a vital role in helping our nation recovery from the current situation? Will he join me in urging the new Minister—I, too, am delighted to see him in his place—that bringing forward the review of regional connectivity should be at the top of his to-do list?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree, because this is not actually about our principal airports; it is about the regional airports, which are the cornerstone of their local economies. Heathrow airport will be there in 10 years’ time whatever happens, but we cannot say the same of our regional airports, which are facing a financial crisis as we go through this pandemic. We cannot expect it to be business as usual for the taxes they pay, the regulations they follow and so on. A sensible series of steps will have to be taken this autumn to ensure that those businesses are still here in a year’s time when this crisis begins to abate, as we all hope it will.
I also want to echo some of the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). It is inevitable, sadly, that there will be job losses as a result of what is happening at the moment. I wish it were otherwise—we all wish it were otherwise—but it is not. However, it must also be the case that every airline should strain every sinew to ensure that they protect as many jobs as they can, because these are the people on whom those airlines and airports will depend as they seek to rebuild their business, hopefully in 2021. So my message to all those employers is: do what you have to do to keep your businesses afloat, so that there is still an employer there, but do not go beyond what you need to do to deliver that recovery. That would be absolutely the wrong thing to do in this incredibly difficult time for our country.
We must also consider the broader sector, because this is not just about airlines and airports. It is about a whole range of other businesses, including the suppliers to the aviation sector, the firms that make the planes, parts of planes and equipment at our airports, and the travel businesses, large and small, that depend on this sector.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about the broader sector, because across the north of England and north Wales, a huge amount of the supply chain for the airline sector and the people who actually make the planes is really vulnerable at the moment, including Gardner Aerospace in my constituency, which is at risk of losing half its staff. So this is a really important point for the Government to take away from this: this is a much broader sectoral issue.
Chris Grayling
These are crucial points. If we are seriously to rebalance our economy, we cannot afford to lose some of the fine manufacturing businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere that service our aerospace sector so well and make it at such a fundamentally important part of the manufacturing side of our economy.
Of course, the Government can do something in this field because as a nation we procure, for military and civil purposes, a significant amount of equipment. This autumn, as we go into the Budget round and look to step up capital spending to help us through the recovery, we have the ability to take procurement decisions that will help the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and others. My message to Ministers would be that, as we look at how best to take ourselves through the recovery, the purchasing power they have to invest in equipment that we will need for the future could make a real difference if they were to bring forward some of those orders now.
My final point is that we absolutely have to rebuild the sector, get these businesses going again and get people flying again, but there is also a duty on the industry and all of us to ensure that it is, as far as is possible, a green recovery. There is no simple way of solving the environmental impact of the aviation sector. It cannot suddenly become net zero or green overnight, but it has to take steps in the right direction, whether through the electrification of airports, the reduction of fuel consumption of planes or other methods that can make the industry less environmentally impactful. My message to the industry and to the Government is that they should work together to ensure that the industry really is on the mend and that we get people flying again, but do so in the most environmentally sustainable way possible. This is a crucial industry, and it must get back to something like normal, but it needs to do so in a way that is consistent with all our futures.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I have Liverpool John Lennon airport in my constituency, so I would particularly like to congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on obtaining this debate and giving me the opportunity to say something about what is happening there. I found myself agreeing with the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—a rare event—when he said that this involves a much broader range than just the airlines and the staff who work in the airports. We have air traffic controllers, ground handlers—it is Swissport at Liverpool John Lennon—and various retail outlets, many of whose staff are on furlough. There are also the airlines—mainly easyJet and Ryanair at Liverpool John Lennon—as well as airport security and other service providers, and that is just at the airport. I have not mentioned industries that service it, as the right hon. Gentleman did.
In addition, tourism and the visitor economy in Liverpool have been a huge part of the regeneration of the city. This has been dependent in part on the airport, and it was particularly boosted by our year as European capital of culture in 2008. It supports some 35,000 jobs in the industry. As John Irving, the chief executive officer of Liverpool airport, told me and as all parts of the sector have told the Government, aviation was one of the first sectors impacted by covid. The impacts are worldwide and ongoing, and therefore will be significant for some time, and full recovery post covid is likely to take a long time, with some people suggesting that volumes will not recover in the next two or three years.
So far, the impact has been bad: 15% of the jobs at my airport, John Lennon, have gone, with more redundancies not ruled out; easyJet, one of the main airlines there is making 70 redundant at Liverpool airport, despite having taken a £600 million loan from the Government and paid out £174 million in dividends to its shareholders at the beginning of furlough; and Swissport has 60 jobs at risk at the airport in my constituency. Many of the retailers who are still on furlough will face an uncertain future in October, and a significant number of security staff and others providing services in the airport find their jobs at risk.
Passenger numbers are 65% below what would be expected normally at this time, so ongoing difficulties cannot be ruled out, and the 14-day quarantine chopping and changing of arrangements from one week to the next simply generates uncertainty. On the lack of progress in finding a way forward on testing, I completely support what the former Prime Minister said. There is no adequate financial support for those who suddenly find themselves having to quarantine, and this adds to the uncertainty. We must have a sector-specific deal for aviation, and we must have a tapering or a continuation of the furlough scheme to make sure that this industry does not completely disappear in future months.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Three minutes—gosh! I am glad the high-speed rail Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), is on the Front Bench to inspire me to get a move on.
I welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), to the ejector seat role of aviation Minister. He is the fifth in two years; I was No. 3. Such is the turnover that who knows how long he will last. Will he still be there to bring us in to land? I do not know, and that is part of the problem. The sector does not have the continuity in the Department that it needs for long-term decision making. He has fantastic officials, but he certainly has not got enough of them. In the past year, they have had to deal with the collapse of Thomas Cook, the slow, prolonged agony and death of Flybe and now covid-19. They are absolutely frazzled, I have no doubt, which means they cannot do the longer-term work, on issues such as slot allocation, that I think are so important for the Department to grapple with.
I agree with everything everyone has said so far—there is no point repeating it—but on testing, let me make a plea to learn from Italy, which now has obligatory pre-departure testing. There is no environment more conducive to the transmission of the virus than that on board an aircraft. We have a chance to test people before they board, and we should oblige all UK-registered airlines to do just that. Passengers would check in half an hour early, as they do in Italy at the moment, and if they test positive, they would not be allowed to board. That would stop the importation of the virus into the UK. To me, it stands to reason.
May I assist my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) by making a few pleas on behalf of regional airports, in case he does not get the chance to do so? The Government need to move faster on regional airports. They were having an existential crisis already when Flybe collapsed, and it is currently a case of apocalypse now. There was a regional airport review, it had conclusions and there was a 10-point plan. I know because I wrote it, and left it in my in-tray, so I know what it is going to say. The Department knows what it wants to do on public service obligation flights, and that can easily be changed. They are all domestic routes and there is no quarantine angle at all: we can make the changes now.
The Minister may have heard—in fact, I doubt he has heard yet—that Southend airport has, just this week, installed its new £400,000 security scanner. It is one of those that allows passengers not to have to remove liquids from their baggage, and it is part of our overhaul of transport security. They are immensely good news across all airports, but they cost an incredible amount of money—£400,000. In many smaller airports, they require a complete redesign of the terminal layout. Just go and ask the chief executive of Leeds Bradford. Can the Government do more to consider better use of capital allowances to facilitate that sort of investment?
My mantra as Minister was that we were the aviation nation and had to remain so to be ambitious on behalf of the UK sector, but we risk becoming a flightless nation, stuck on the ground and unable to go anywhere. There was a flightless bird called the dodo, which is now extinct. Do not let UK plc’s aviation sector become extinct, please.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
With Teesside International Airport in my constituency, aviation is obviously important to us. I welcome the Government’s £8.5 billion support package for the industry and their approach to travel corridors, which have allowed aviation to start its return to normality. I hope that, as science develops, the air bridges will become more focused and better, but so much more is required.
The recent investment in Teesside International Airport is bringing jobs, connectivity and economic growth to the north-east. Ben Houchen, the Conservative Mayor of Teesside, set out four years ago to save the airport, which is a prime example of what a well connected local airport can do for an area. It is connecting Teesside to the world, broadening horizons and increasing opportunity. It has created jobs for local people, not just in aviation but in other sectors as well, and it is a critical part of the transport infrastructure for the region, with direct links to the rest of the world via Amsterdam and Heathrow that serve as a magnet for business investment.
That connectivity is a key asset for both private and public sector organisations relocating to the area, and it will be an obvious benefit for the Treasury or other Departments that are thinking about relocating. We need appropriate support to ensure that regional airports survive and continue to provide the connectivity that drives and facilitates investment and plays a critical part in both the levelling up and build back better agendas.
In getting aviation back on its feet, we have the opportunity to redefine the aviation sector. After the reset driven by covid-19, we can move to a more sustainable and greener future through a balanced and considered approach. Climate Assembly UK, which today published its report “The path to net zero”, supports the need for an ongoing and sustainable aviation industry and makes recommendations that include the need to engage the population in making necessary changes and promoting UK travel.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
My hon. Friend will share my concern about the fact that Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick is now looking to offshore 350 jobs to Singapore. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government really need to engage with such businesses, because once local skills bases disappear, they are gone for good?
John Howell
I agree absolutely. We need to do all we can as we go through the covid-19 crisis to make sure that we retain key industries and jobs in our country.
Climate Assembly UK also recommend investments in the development and use of new technologies for air travel. There are different aspects of that to consider, including the development of sustainable fuels—some investment in that sector would be good—and the work of companies such as Kromek in Sedgefield, which is developing technology to analyse the air on an aeroplane between take-off and landing to see whether the virus is present on the plane. If we can test on the plane, we do not need to test at the airport—we will know whether there are people carrying the virus on the plane. I would encourage investment in those sectors, which could make our airlines safer and cleaner, and give confidence to both business and leisure travellers.
The aviation sector is vital to our economy, to jobs, to trade and to growth, and there are many proposals on what support could be given, ranging from business rates relief to bring us in line with counterparts in Northern Ireland and Scotland, some form of employment costs support beyond the end of the job retention scheme, some funding for the Civil Aviation Authority, suspension of air passenger duty and, in particular, support for investment in more sustainable airline fuels. I strongly encourage urgent efforts on some or all of those.
There is a post-covid-19 vision for a UK economy that is stronger, more sustainable and more productive, which works for all the UK’s nations and regions. Aviation can play a key role in that future, connecting us to the world, supporting business and UK exporters, and supporting the hundreds of thousands of jobs that rely directly and indirectly on aviation, including those in our world-leading aerospace and tourism sectors. It is important that the Government understand the damage caused by the pandemic. With the right support, the sector can emerge on the other side with as many jobs and as much infrastructure as possible, and with opportunities to support a green economic recovery through investment in low-carbon aviation technologies.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on his new position as aviation Minister.
I first had the opportunity to raise the potential impact of covid-19 on the aviation sector back in January. I have the privilege of representing the world’s busiest—or it certainly used to be the world’s busiest—single runway airport, and this issue is extremely important for the wellbeing of my local economy, which has the headquarters of Virgin Atlantic airlines, easyJet’s largest centre of operations and many others. However, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is also an extremely important industry and sector for the UK economy.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a formidable champion of aviation, particularly in West Sussex. Does he agree that an important point in this debate is that the impact affects the entire supply chain, from companies such as Avtrade in Sayers Common in my constituency, which neighbours his, all the way down through companies that provide the food, luggage, baggage handling and maintenance contracts?
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is exactly right: the UK aviation industry is vital to the whole of our national economy, and there is a ripple effect. If, as an island trading nation, aviation is not supported, the negative impact is felt throughout the whole economy. That is why I make no apology for being parochial about Gatwick airport; this is an important issue for the whole British economy.
I am very grateful to right hon. and hon. Friends from both sides of the House for joining me in the Future of Aviation Group, which I am honoured to chair. We have introduced a 10-point plan of recovery and support for the aviation industry. As I have two minutes left, I will highlight just five of those key points.
First, as has been mentioned, testing is essential. Over 30 countries test arrivals for covid-19. That is important not just for confidence for people travelling again, but for public health confidence. We are at a competitive disadvantage with countries in Europe, such as France, Germany, Italy and Austria, who do test if we are not testing. Further afield, other countries such as the UAE and Singapore test too. It is absolutely vital. Virgin Atlantic tells me that it does not expect business to be at even a quarter of 2019 levels by the end of this year. Testing would help that.
Secondly, we recommend an extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme—the furlough—for aviation sector employees until March 2021, because, effectively, the aviation sector will experience at least three winter seasons as a result of the situation.
Thirdly, business rates relief for airports in England, as has occurred in other parts of the United Kingdom, is extremely important.
Fourthly, I have been arguing for many years for the reduction—indeed, the scrapping—of air passenger duty, but we need a relief for at least the next year to support airlines.
Finally, we need a sustainable regrowth of our aviation industry. In February, the UK airline industry committed to net zero carbon by 2050. We need investment—some £500 million of matched investment—from the Government with industry to develop sustainable aviation fuels. That is the way we recover, for our whole country.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The star award for using covid as an opportunity to demoralise and destroy its workforce has to go to British Airways. One of my constituents—a long-standing employee of 25 years—told me that after months of toxic bullying and mental anguish, she has been offered a new contract that is so deliberately ambiguous that she feels she has to take it or face redundancy. The worrying proposals in the new contract include, for example, that she may be forced to relocate temporarily or permanently to anywhere in the world. An associated company may also take over her holiday entitlement; that company will also have access to her health records and, bizarrely, the right to search her and her property. All that for a 40% reduction in her pay, while the outgoing chief executive is £3 million better off.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The hon. Lady has made an important point. Does she agree that because this appalling behaviour towards the workforce has gone unchecked, it has been replicated by other companies such as Centrica? Does she also agree that the Government should support the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), which would stop this appalling practice?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The hon. Member’s intervention leads me nicely on to my next point. My constituent tells me that some of her colleagues have actually taken their own lives and some have suffered heart attacks. The Government are not powerless. They can put a stop to these awful fire and rehire practices before they spread through other industries.
Our easyJet base in Newcastle has also closed. Our neighbours in Europe, recognising the value of regional connectivity, jobs, skills and a supply chain that benefits the wider local economy, have given substantial bailouts—not loans—to their operators. They have also substantially extended furlough, which the Government here rejected outright yesterday. I spoke to an easyJet pilot who asked me to put to the Minister why the Government are not considering travel corridors on a region-by-region basis in the same way they have applied measures in the UK. It does not make sense to shut down access to an entire country when just one part of it has an outbreak of coronavirus.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government have set up the aviation engagement unit, but can he tell us exactly what it has achieved? From what I can see, it has achieved very little so far. My constituents’ futures and jobs are on the line. It is in the Government’s gift to do something. Why don’t they?
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for securing this much needed and timely debate on the aviation sector. It has been a pleasure to work with him on the Committee, under his chairmanship.
We have considered the devastating impact of the coronavirus on the aviation sector and the Government’s response to support the sector, not least travel corridors, safe travel guidance, passenger refunds and, of course, the furlough scheme. I welcome reports that the Government are looking at more comprehensive testing at UK airports to reduce the time for quarantine, which would further help the travel industry get anywhere near back on its feet.
The much anticipated aviation recovery plan is due this autumn. It simply cannot come soon enough to address the scale of the crisis still facing the sector. The Government should be commended for setting up an unprecedented level of support to protect jobs but, sadly, despite the measures in place, the obstacles to survival faced by many smaller airlines and regional airports would challenge even the most experienced pilot.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend represents the nearest airport to my airport in Newquay. Does he agree that the regional airports are going to play a vital role in delivering on the Government’s levelling up agenda, and that if we lose them it will make the Government’s job of investing in the regions even harder?
Simon Jupp
My hon. Friend takes the words straight out of my mouth. Colleagues will recall the collapse of Flybe in March, which was devastating for its employees, many of whom live in Exeter and East Devon.
Despite Government intervention and offers of assistance, Flybe shareholders chose to walk away from an airline that they signed up to support. It was a punch in the gut to regional connectivity, and the impact is still felt in East Devon and across the south-west. Although some form of Flybe routes from Exeter airport have been brought back to life by new airlines, the future of these routes remains on a knife edge. Back in March, a review of air passenger duty was announced as part of a package of measures to support Flybe and regional connectivity by air. Many colleagues welcomed this move to level the playing field by ensuring that regional airlines were not hampered by having to pay APD twice. It is essential that the Government use all the tools at their disposal to ensure a fair and level playing field for operators such as Loganair and Blue Islands, which operate from Exeter airport.
After months of engagement with the aviation industry, I hope that the Government are actively considering scrapping business rates for airports for 12 months, with Government support making up the difference to local authorities that would feel the pinch. Airports in England have paid more than £17 million in business rates since the start of the lockdown in March, despite passenger numbers dropping by around 97%. In response to the Transport Committee’s inquiry, the Government said that discussions on business rates were ongoing with airports. I urge the Government to speed up discussions and offer solutions that support the future of regional aviation because we will not be able to level up our regions if we level off regional connectivity.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this debate and the Chair of the Transport Committee on his work, his support and his Committee’s excellent report.
My remarks today reflect the situation around Heathrow, but are not limited to it. I thank and commend the local authorities around west London, and also west London business, Brunel University and others, for their remarkable efforts to come together for local rescue and recovery plans. I also welcome the call for an aviation communities fund from local authorities, particularly to support re-skilling, business growth and infrastructure.
This is a national emergency and the impact of not acting now to secure an aviation deal and to support businesses and aviation communities in the next few weeks will be devastating. The cost to the state will be far greater than the cost of measures to get us through even to the spring, when many companies expect to see demand grow. The message from employers is clear: aviation is much more than airports and airlines. It is the aviation fuel companies, retail, baggage handling, hospitality, security, logistics, facilities management, engineering, airline catering and much, much more. Their needs are different—some are paid for each flight, some are paid per passenger, and some are paid for services such as meals on flights—but their sustained success depends on each other. It is urgent to act now, because section 188 notices are being issued as companies plan for what they expect to be the end of furlough at the end of October.
Jim Shannon
One of the suggestions that the unions and others have put forward is that Her Majesty’s Government could mitigate the level of redundancies to recognise that those the hon. Lady has referred to, who could be made redundant, will have been paying national insurance of some 14% and their pensions as employees, while also saving the UK benefits and redundancy payments. Her Majesty’s Government could provide some funding—perhaps 25% funding—for each employee’s wages to retain the skills and, at the same time, ensure that the business can get to January and November next year where it needs to get to.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member makes a very important point. Indeed, may I put on record my thanks to Unite, GMB and the other unions that I have been working with for all that they have done, day in, day out, to support workers and their businesses? He also makes a very important point about the retention of skills. Airport businesses have said to me that it takes six to nine months to train somebody to work in such a complex environment. Even cleaning an aircraft is as much about understanding security and counter-terrorism as it is about being able to serve all those passengers and the company. I thank him for making that point, because it links to the issue that this is about not just individual employees, but our readiness to recover when the time comes and keeping our businesses in place.
It is important to act now. Tens of thousands of jobs could be saved by a flexible extension to furlough, allowing employers to have employees on reduced hours perhaps, which will mean that families are supported to pay their bills and to stay in work. If the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary do not do this, they are simply passing a preventable problem over to an already stretched Department for Work and Pensions. In Feltham and Heston alone, there has been a 74% increase—to more than 19,000 people— in the number of people on universal credit. The local citizens advice bureau has talked about the level of inquiries it has had on debt. People are now being forced to borrow from loan sharks to pay one bill as another red letter looms.
Patricia Gibson
No doubt the hon. Lady will share my disappointment that the Chancellor’s promise of tailored support has not yet materialised. Does she agree that ending furlough in October, just at the point when payment holidays are ending, will cause real difficulties for families? There is no respite for them. It really is time for the Government to step up and provide tailored support for furlough.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She shows that families will look forward to Christmas with dread, rather than with aspiration and hope for the new year. In six months’ time, we could be seeing children who are preparing for exams after two years of disrupted education being evicted from their homes—that is the scale of what will happen. I request that the Government act quickly to ensure that we get support in place early and that we do not see a wait until November, when it could be too late.
A recent report by Oxford Economics has shown the scale of local jobs around Heathrow: 133,000 jobs are being directly and indirectly supported, including in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Following his response to a parliamentary question about membership of the expert steering group, however, I am concerned that the Minister is not hearing all the voices in aviation. Perhaps he will not mind if I write to him with additional suggestions for under-represented voices and academic voices that could be useful in thinking about the future of aviation.
In summary, I make five recommendations: working with employers, a flexible and targeted continuation of furlough to keep people in work until aviation recovers—other countries are doing it, and so should we. Business rates deferral has been called for by Heathrow—I have written to the Prime Minister about it; Heathrow has not said “waiver”, it has said “deferral”—to help with cashflow, which in turn will help other businesses. Reduced quarantine through increased testing will bring greater confidence to fly. I also recommend a slot waiver review, so that airlines are not penalised next year for being unable to use slots this year. Finally, I recommend investment for growth, including through a new communities fund.
That extension of furlough, however, should also be conditional. For example, Heathrow has issued its own section 188 notice and, on Dnata Catering, many employees have written to me to say that they are being forced to sign a new contract on reduced terms. Instead, those companies should be negotiating with their unions for a solution—
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing this debate and for his work on behalf of the thousands of employees in the aviation sector. This pandemic has impacted the sector hugely.
I place on the record my thanks to my constituents who are employed by British Airways, Victoria Lines, Andrew Harris and Jay Kalijan, who have engaged with me extensively on the impact of BA’s treatment of them. I have endorsed the campaign calling for a review of the landing slots allocated to BA.
I am thankful that the Government have taken unprecedented steps to protect workers in the aviation sector, with support in excess of £8.5 billion. Had the Government not taken those steps, the impact would have been more catastrophic than it already is, although we must do more. Despite such an unprecedented intervention, British Airways, Ryanair, easyJet and Virgin Atlantic have all made, or intend to make, large-scale redundancies. The situation is unsustainable, as major UK airports continue to see losses.
The impact on the aviation sector is not limited to the major airlines or the big international airports. It was clear early on, with the collapse of Flybe, that regional connectivity was also at risk. I am proud of the work of our Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who has taken Teesside International airport from strength to strength, having saved it from virtual destruction after it was given away by Labour-controlled local authorities. If anyone needs an example of how essential aviation is to protecting local jobs, following the rescue of Teesside airport, the international sporting brand Dunlop specifically chose to retain its UK offices in my constituency, because of that connectivity. It is important for recovery that we support regional airports.
I believe strongly that we need to recognise that national policy can often disadvantage regional airports. I am therefore glad that before the March 2020 Budget, a review of airport passenger duty was announced. The scrapping of the duty would further support regional connectivity. As we build back greener, we must support our regional airports. They enable economic growth, maintain regional connectivity and lead to job creation and retention.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The north-west aerospace cluster is the largest in the country, contributing more than £7 billion to the UK economy and employing thousands of people, so this is an issue of great importance to my constituents, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for bringing this critical debate before the House.
Allow me to declare an interest: before I had the great privilege of representing the people of Birkenhead in this House, I served as north-west regional secretary for Unite the union. During that time, I represented many of the thousands of aerospace workers who now find their jobs under threat, including Rolls-Royce employees at Barnoldswick, where many operations are now being moved to Singapore. I am sure I will not be alone in condemning that decision as utterly shameful and as endangering the world-leading status of British aerospace.
At the height of the pandemic, I applauded the speed and enthusiasm with which British aerospace companies responded to the ventilator challenge. It demonstrated an industry that is versatile, highly skilled and able to diversify quickly to meet the needs of the nation. We call the industry world beating for a reason. With British aviation facing unprecedented challenges, however, the need for a comprehensive recovery strategy has never been clearer. The Government say they need to bring together trade unions and industry leaders to save jobs, protect apprenticeships and lead the charge towards a carbon-neutral sector. I would also stress the importance of mitigating job losses through diversification, focusing on socially useful production, especially the medical goods and green technologies that will be so essential in the years to come.
The Government have long recognised the pressing need for such a strategy, and yet this week they have announced that their recovery strategy will only be published some time in the autumn. That is utterly shameful. I also call once again on the Chancellor to act against companies that accepted money from the job retention scheme and then cut jobs. The Government’s inaction so far has already caused irreparable devastation. Thousands of jobs have been lost, many more are set to be offshored, and the industry is drawing ever closer to falling off the furlough cliff edge. Time is fast running out. The Government must act now.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), on his new role—long may it continue—and I thank the Government for their £8.5 billion of investment in the aviation sector,
What has been shocking in this pandemic has been the way aviation companies have responded and treated their employees, and by far the most shocking has been British Airways, which is what I want to speak on today. It is about fairness and the lack of fairness displayed in companies such as British Airways, which I feel has been using the pandemic as an excuse to liquidate its assets and move it transnational base out of Britain and overseas.
Today, I want to speak on behalf of constituents in places such as Marlow, Beaconsfield, Flackwell Heath and Hedgerley who have worked for British Airways, some for 20 or 30 years, and who have been left with virtually nothing. As we move towards October, can we look at how businesses are going to respond when the furlough scheme ends and how we treat companies such as British Airways that hold valuable slots at Heathrow?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member has heard many heartbreaking stories from constituents treated appallingly by this nation’s flag carrier. Will she call on her own Front Bench to ban this fire-and-rehire policy it is using? There is a private Member’s Bill before us tomorrow. The Government should be taking this on, because it is a practical and obvious way they can step in to back BA employees.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of how we can hold companies such as British Airways to account. It is an issue of fairness. If it is going to liquidate not only its assets but its British employees, we should look at which companies are retaining the highest percentage of British employees and think about how we can reallocate the slots to them. There should be a reward for fairness.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
We are continually being told by companies such as British Airways that the rationale for the current staff restructuring plans stems from covid-19, and covid-19 only. To prove that point, does my hon. Friend agree that British Airways should undertake now to rehire its staff on their old terms once the good times return?
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly as I believe British Airways pointed out to its shareholders that it planned to get back to levels of profitability and demand by 2023. It also plans, through its partner company IAG, to acquire Air Europa for an estimated €500 million off the back of the hardworking BA employees who have dedicated so much time to build up the assets the company as a whole is benefiting from. I hope we can look at landing slots, and how we can hold BA and other companies to account.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I have said before, and I say it again in this House, that I would like the steering committee to consider including an employment lawyer, an employment judge or a judge from the employment appeal tribunal to oversee the redundancies that are being conducted in the aviation sector, so that we get fairness and parity of treatment across staff in the coming months.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which she raised in the first debate. BA employees said it was an excellent point and that they would like to see that. They have had no representation and no way to appeal against the practice that BA has used against them.
I hope we can move toward a better approach to the aviation sector. I will fully support that. I fully support further tax cuts to aviation and further furloughing—anything to keep the sector going. However, we should not reward bad behaviour by giving in to companies that exploit British employees at the cost of transnational profits.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Is the hon. Lady taking the intervention?
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Lady rightly said that BA has behaved very badly towards its employees and everybody agrees on that. Will she then explain why she is not willing, and her party is not willing, to back the fire and rehire Bill?
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I congratulate Members from both sides of the House on securing such a vital debate.
The Airbus CEO has warned that this is the gravest crisis that the aerospace industry has ever known. The need for Government intervention is crucial for the survival of the sector and its 1.6 million jobs. Yesterday, I met Jamie, a trade union rep from BWT Senior Aerospace, who was taking part in a “save our jobs” rally. Jamie and the members in his factory have agreed to a four-day working week, resulting in saving at least a third of the planned redundancies in his plant. The agreement demonstrates that trade unions and their members are prepared to play their part to preserve employment during the pandemic.
I am now going to say a sentence I never, ever thought I would utter: well done Michael O’Leary and Ryanair. After announcing huge job losses in May, Ryanair entered negotiations with Unite the Union and came to an agreement on a temporary pay cut for members which took redundancies off the table. In stark contrast is the behaviour, as has been mentioned, of British Airways. BA is responding to the pandemic by firing all its 42,000 staff and rehiring those who survive, roughly 30,000, on inferior terms and conditions of employment. Some face a loss of income of between 55% and 75%. BA received £200 million from the UK Government’s coronavirus loan scheme and over £100 million in furlough payments, yet it is paying its outgoing CEO Willie Walsh a leaving bonus of over £800,000 as part of a total package worth £3.2 million.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that £833,000 will stick in the craw of so many decent British working people across the country and that the Government should immediately take action to look at the issue of the slots? It should also say to British Airways that it will be stripped of the right to have British livery on their planes for good unless it decides to treat its staff in a decent and proper way.
Ian Byrne
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Painfully for me, Willie Walsh is a Liverpool supporter who has obviously never learned the words of our famous anthem of solidarity, “You’ll Never Walk Alone”, because he has left his entire workforce to walk alone while he disappears into the sunset not fearing the prospect of using a food bank, which is where he has shamefully left many of his loyal workforce with his actions.
Is it too much to expect companies such as BA, which has billions in reserve, to show the same loyalty many of its employees have shown to it over the decades and not to take advantage of covid-19 to launch an opportunist attack on its staff’s terms and conditions? I call on the Minister to show the solidarity and empathy with the BA staff that the company has not shown and to consider the following proposals. The BA plan to fire and rehire its staff on worse terms and conditions is undeniably a fundamental attack on the rights of its workforce. It is immoral, and shamefully, it is spreading to other sectors of our economy, including British Gas, which with BA joins a list of dishonour in treating a loyal workforce appallingly.
Will the Minister pledge support for urgent legislative change, such as the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill, a private Member’s Bill that we may consider tomorrow, to outlaw this shameful practice once and for all? I also urge the Minister to amend slot regulations and put in place much more rigorous conditions for all the legacy slots to ensure that from 2021, the UK Parliament will use its power to set additional local criteria for slot allocations that incentivises internal investment, social responsibility and connectivity. We cannot build a brighter future for our nation post-covid while we have companies acting with such blatant disregard for their employees and our communities.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I, more than many, welcome the new Minister to his place and wish him every success. Before I say anything else, I just want to say that my thoughts are with all those affected by the bus crash in my constituency this morning. I praise those who responded so well from the emergency services and the students. There are very serious questions to be asked about what happened and why it happened, and I am already asking them.
In three minutes, I will make three points, if I may. Like many Members here today, I represent a lot of British Airways employees who are nothing short of furious, upset and disappointed at how a crisis of no one’s making became an industrial relations catastrophe. I have been contacted by constituents who are facing a loss of income of sometimes up to 70%. It is not fair to raise the issue without recognising that aviation has been decimated by the pandemic, and that is not of BA’s making, but I add my voice to colleagues who have rightly said that it is no way to treat a workforce who have made it one of the most successful airlines in history and the flag carrier for the UK.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s recent commitment to establishing a Jet Zero Council with the goal of making net zero carbon emissions a reality for flights in the future. We wrote to the Secretary of State in February this year with a decarbonisation roadmap from the organisation Sustainable Aviation—a detailed plan to achieve zero carbon by 2050 by investing in cleaner aircraft, engine technology, smarter flight operations, sustainable aviation fuels and high-quality carbon offsets. Post covid, all those actions remain essential if we are to achieve that ambition.
There are a number of things the Treasury could do to help, but I would suggest that should be led by some £500 million of Government funding, matched by industry, to support the delivery of sustainable aviation fuel plants in the UK. That is partnership, jobs and building back greener.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Talking about going greener, does my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour know that Southampton airport, which is by our constituencies, needs to extend its runway to enable greener travel and stop constituents travelling to Gatwick and Heathrow. Will he encourage Eastleigh Borough Council to get on and decide? If not, it is time for the Government to issue a special development order to extend that runway.
Steve Brine
Yes. Many of my constituents rely on Southampton airport for their family income, and we have been decimated by the demise of Flybe, as my constituency neighbour knows. I know that he is working so hard to get his local council to see some reality and not just be blinded by its ideology. That development is connected with my point about jet zero for exactly the reason that he said. The runway extension at Southampton international airport was already needed, but it is now actually needed to allow the airport to survive full stop.
As a neighbouring MP, I represent the southern parishes in Winchester district, and we want to see a noise-preferred route, for which Southampton airport is responsible in its own airspace up to 5,000 metres. That was left out the last time the airport was expanded and had planning permission. I need Southampton airport to understand that I will support it, but it needs to support my constituents too.
British Airways has many questions to answer. I know that BA slots at Heathrow are not in the Government’s gift, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate. Jet zero is something that this Government can be proud of, and I look forward to seeing it develop in the months and years ahead. Air travel and meeting our climate objectives and climate commitments are not incompatible, and we should not fall into the silly trap of seeing them as either/or. Finally, I will work with Southampton airport, but it needs to work with me.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank all those who have secured the debate, and I hope colleagues will understand my offering special thanks to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for helping to make this debate finally happen.
I cannot stress enough the urgency of the situation faced by airline and airport workers in Luton right now. For us, this is for not only our airport but our town’s whole economy. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), to his place. I really hope that he takes this opportunity to listen and to act, with his first major act being to save thousands of jobs in Luton and save this vital industry.
The seriousness of the pandemic is an existential threat to our airlines, our airports and the workers who keep them running. People in my constituency who work at airlines such as easyJet and Wizz Air at Luton airport and across the supply chains cannot afford to wait for the Government to carry on dithering on support for the airline industry. As has been stated, it is not just specific sectors but specific areas like Luton that need Government support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and I have been calling for the Government to protect jobs and support our town since March. We have written to Ministers. I have lost count of the number of calls we have been on with industry leaders, workers and trade unions. I have had countless items of correspondence from airline and aviation staff asking what action the Government are prepared to take and why Governments in France and Germany are supporting their workers but ours are not.
As the furlough scheme comes to an end, our workers face a cliff edge, and they are still wondering what happens next. The mixed messages need to end. We need clear, sector-specific support; increased testing, track and trace; and international co-operation, not competition. While the Government promised us that they would do whatever it takes to get people in Luton through the crisis, in so many ways, we are still waiting. When I say that I will do whatever it takes, I mean it. I will meet whoever it takes and twist as many arms in Government as I can until they listen to the sector, to Luton, to airline staff and to the trade unions, extend the furlough scheme and protect as many jobs as possible.
At the start of the pandemic, the Conservatives promised Luton that they would do whatever it takes to get us through this pandemic. There is still a chance to keep that promise, but the situation is urgent. Time is running out; they cannot wait much longer. The promise to do whatever it takes will be broken, more jobs will be lost and lives will be ruined if action is not taken now. We need to see the Government step up and give sector-specific support for the industry, for workers and for towns like Luton.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), to his place. This is an incredibly important debate for my constituency, as Buckingham is conveniently commutable from Luton airport and Heathrow airport and not too far to commute from Birmingham airport. Many of my constituents who work for airlines and airports have written to me with horror stories about the way they have been treated, particularly by British Airways, but also easyJet.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—the Chairman of the Transport Committee, on which I serve—for securing the debate. With time being short, I will not repeat the arguments made, but I certainly agree with the central premise that, to get aeroplanes in the sky once more, to get people flying and to save this sector, we have to look at increased testing capability.
I very much welcome the £8.5 billion that the Government have already made available to the aviation sector. While we look to save jobs, which is the most important thing, we have to accept that no change is not an option. Anybody who argues for simply no change is probably not going to win that argument. Where we have to look most specifically is at how we are going to get British Airways, in particular, to change its mind and its attitude to its employees. I add my voice to those of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken on that subject. Let us focus on the balance sheet of British Airways: the company made a £1.1 billion profit, after tax, last year; it has £2.6 billion in cash reserves; and it has £5.8 billion in shareholder equity. All those facts were detailed in the Select Committee report, and all that is before we get on to the parent company, IAG, and its reserves. So as BA takes a cold, hard look in the mirror, it could consider, having taken so much furlough money from the British taxpayer, being a little more like Barratt Homes in its approach to taxpayers’ money.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I hope that the new chief executive officer of IAG is listening today and has heard so many different voices from across the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend agree that now would be the time for the company to think again and come to a reasonable agreement with its workforce?
Greg Smith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that British Airways has behaved appallingly throughout this crisis. Covid has brought challenges to every business, of every size, but when we look at some of those balance sheet numbers I just detailed, we see that British Airways really does need to take that cold, hard look in the mirror. In the minute I have remaining, I wish to talk about a particular issue that has come to my attention.
Greg Smith
I will be quick. The issue relates to veterans who joined BA. The scheme that allowed them to leave the armed forces and go to BA is now being abused, in that although it is great news that some BA pilots have been able to go back to BA for secure employment, at the start of this crisis the deal was that they would be able to return to BA on a set date. Half of them now cannot do so, and I encourage BA to look at that again.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We are moving on to the wind-ups now, and I have to say that 37 Members have not got in. More have not got in than have got in. Clearly, that is not acceptable, but it shows how popular this debate is. Perhaps one suggestion to make to the Backbench Business Committee is that where it has two debates that have a link, it could hold just one debate, so that more Members can get in. However, that is something for the Committee to look at.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Let me, too, start by welcoming the new Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), to his place—if he is listening. He has a fantastic job, albeit an extremely difficult one, because the challenges facing our aviation industry are manifold and unprecedented. Our Committee managed to examine them in depth and detail, even though Members were scattered in spare rooms and at dinner tables around the country. That is a tribute to the Clerks, the staff of the Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who opened the debate so powerfully. I thank them for their generosity and hard work in ensuring that the Committee’s report was as thorough as it was. Those challenges facing the industry are not going away, and as the decision to scrap the furlough kicks in over the coming weeks they are just going to get worse. Aviation faces a crisis the likes of which has not been seen since world war two.
As others have, I wish particularly to highlight the fact that regional airports across the UK are facing existential challenges. Too often, aviation policy and debate seem to be driven by the big London airports, particularly Heathrow. The local airports around these isles, such as Glasgow airport, in my constituency, provide not only domestic links, but connectivity to Europe and a world without a stopover in the south-east of England. That connectivity is now under serious threat. Many airports are teetering on the brink, hit by a double whammy of coronavirus and the collapse of Flybe earlier this year. Others still face short-term and long-term challenges that not only threaten their businesses, but risk having a severe impact on other sectors of the economy as well.
There is a real urgency to this issue, and recommendation 9 of the Committee’s report urged the Government to commit to complete and publish their much-heralded regional connectivity review by the end of the year. To say that the Government response is underwhelming is an understatement. It said:
“Workstreams focusing on regional connectivity will continue beyond the publication of the Autumn recovery plan”—
one that is already coming too late for many. The only action in response to the connectivity points was the support for some Northern Irish routes: nothing about support anywhere else in the UK; nothing about increasing use of public service obligations; and, on the review, nothing about a definite timetable, let alone the required acceleration to it. This simply is not good enough. I ask the new Minister to look at this issue and to do all he can to bring this forward.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
On regional connectivity, the first airline to fall foul of covid was Flybe. Does my hon. Friend agree that in supporting the Flybe workforce as a result of the pandemic, EY and the Government have been completely neglectful? The workforce have been cast aside and completely ignored throughout this whole experience. They should have had full entitlement to the job retention scheme and should have been protected, because they are essential to the recovery post covid.
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more. The Transport Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and said that he had saved Flybe. Furthermore, the Chancellor promised back in March that there would be sector-specific support for the aviation industry. The Secretary of State stood in the same room as me, looked the industry in the eye, and said, “I understand the enormity of what you are facing and this Government will stand by your side.” But where is he? Where are the Government? The loyal workers of British Airways, EasyJet, Menzies Aviation, Swissport and so many others look at their P45s or their shamefully slashed contracts and do not think that the Government have been by their side. What is left of the sector is waiting. As of now we have seen nothing, and, as we have seen, it is the employees who are taking the brunt.
The Committee also recommended that business rates relief should be extended in England and Wales to aviation businesses. The only sector-specific support for the aviation industry has come from the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive in giving airports and ancillary firms a rates holiday for a year. The Treasury must step up and do the same.
Gavin Newlands
I will make some progress.
We also looked at problems faced by thousands of customers in their attempts to secure refunds from airlines after cancellations caused by the pandemic. It is unacceptable that airline after airline has decided that the law does not apply to them—although given the example set this week by the Government it is perhaps unsurprising—and tried to evade their legal responsibilities by fobbing customers off with vouchers. While welcoming the recent, belated announcement extending the protections under the ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—scheme, the reprehensible behaviour by some airlines has shown that we need to look at how the system operates and whether we should be keeping passenger fares in trust.
This PR disaster has been confounded by the actions of airlines such as British Airways/IAG. While making full use of Government finance, BA/IAG and its hatchet man-in-chief, Willie Walsh, who has just skipped off into the sunset with an £800,000 bonus pay-off, have sacked 12,000 staff and fired and rehired 30,000 more, with staff forced to take wage cuts of up to 60% and drastically reduced conditions, under threat of being thrown on the dole in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the war.
We have also seen ground handler Menzies Aviation follow a similar path—this despite, during a phone call with me, assuring me that it absolutely would not be taking this kind of approach: an approach that we said would swiftly be followed by others if the Government refused to act. So it has proven, with blue chip company Centrica/British Gas making the same threats, along with many other companies across the UK. This sort of disreputable and despicable management tactic should be against the law, but is not. I again repeat my call for the Government to get behind my Bill or introduce their own measure to make these bully-boy tactics illegal. But despite the difficulties they cause for advocates like me, an industry should not and cannot be judged on the behaviour of its worst members.
At the start of this period, aviation supported nearly 1 million direct and indirect jobs. For those of us who represent airport constituencies, there is real danger that the flood of redundancies becomes a tsunami, with a catastrophic impact on our local and regional economies. The effects on the supply chain are even more devastating when it comes to aerospace companies such as Rolls-Royce. At Inchinnan in my constituency, 700 jobs—over 50% of the workforce—are gone. These were high-skilled, high-value jobs, now lost from our economy, perhaps never to return. I fear for the long-term future of high-level manufacturing like Rolls-Royce if the Government continue to lift not a finger to save jobs and save local communities.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
At the Prestwich aerospace cluster there are 4,000 jobs, and over 10% have already gone. Aviation is a worldwide industry. How the aviation sector in the UK is going to come out of this depends on support from the Government. Other Governments are extending their furlough schemes. Is it not the case that this UK Government need to extend the furlough scheme and invest in sustainable technologies? We need to provide further innovations so that the UK leads the world—leads other countries—and comes out stronger and better.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please reply very briefly, because you really do have to sit down at 3 o’clock.
Gavin Newlands
Okay. I recognise that when looking at our more successful and dynamic European neighbours, seeing such success is sometimes hard for those on the Government Benches. They must surely admit, however, that at least those countries have a plan that goes further than something scrawled on the back of fag packet. France and Germany have decided significantly to extend their furlough schemes because it makes economic sense—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we are really constrained by time.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I address the debate, and with Mr Speaker’s permission, in my capacity as chair of the Co-operative party parliamentary group, I want to place on record my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Chris Herries, who passed away during the recess. She served the Co-operative movement with dedication for many years, most recently as chair of the Co-operative party. She was a woman of great character and strength who made a huge contribution, and she will be hugely missed by all in the movement.
I welcome the new Minister to his place, and wish him every success in his endeavours for the industry. I thank Members across the Chamber for what has been a good debate. It has probably been a long time coming, but nevertheless the volume of interest—59 Members, many of whom did not have the chance to speak—shows the strength of feeling about the impact of this issue on local communities.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place—part of me wonders why the Government did not use their own time to allow it to take place a little sooner. I also thank the trade union movement—Unite, GMB, the British Airline Pilots’ Association, and others—for giving a voice to workers in the industry during a difficult time. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for his leadership in giving detailed support to the sector on our behalf.
We have heard a number of concerns that the Government need to address. First, the impact on jobs has been significant. We heard about that impact in the opening speeches, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). We heard about it from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I hope he takes this in a good spirit, but if the current Transport Secretary is being given advice on performance from the former Transport Secretary, I would say we are in pretty grim territory. With respect, the issue of literally ordering ferries that did not exist gives me a bit of room to say that.
This is a serious issue, and for so long, Members have been crying out for concerted Government action to ensure that further job losses do not take hold. I am afraid, however, that the Government have been found wanting, because a lot of this was entirely avoidable. We heard in a powerful way about the impact on our regional economies if action is not taken. My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen) are all profoundly rooted in their communities, and they fully understand the impact of these job cuts.
We heard from Members across the House the strength of feeling about British Airways and the way it is treating its workforce. I wondered whether some Government Members were becoming trade union officials at some points during the debate, and it was a pleasure to hear that unity. Such behaviour has been outrageous, with loyal staff with decades of service being treated in such a way—that point was made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine).
It stands out that England and Wales have not been given the resource to provide business rates relief to airports, as has happened in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government should consider that—they should consider all options—and we must ensure that local authorities in those areas, particularly where there are rates retention schemes, are fully compensated for any intervention that may follow. That is critical.
Why is this sector important? It brings £22 billion a year into the economy. It is a critical part of the fabric of our economy. It supports 1.6 million jobs. We have all seen the impact of the cuts and what they have meant for staff: 4,500 jobs at easyJet; bases closing at Newcastle, Stansted and Southend; 12,000 jobs at British Airways; 3,000 jobs at Ryanair; and 4,500 jobs at Virgin Atlantic. The list goes on, including through the supply chain at Airbus and GE in south Wales. How many more? The warning signs are there.
We all knew that aviation would be profoundly affected, particularly because of its high operating costs and seasonality—and, of course, the quarantine measures that have been brought in. It will take longer to recover as a result, so in that context, why not extend the support? It makes complete sense, not least because the sector will be critical to our recovery. This country cannot get back to economic health if we erode the foundations of our economy. It is not that difficult to understand: we need action and certainty.
I do wonder: in respect of those who have already been given notice of redundancy, had the Chancellor given more confidence by declaring much earlier that he would extend the furlough scheme, would fewer people have been made redundant? A lot of this is about confidence and how long it can be sustained, given the quarantine uncertainty and the lack of sustained financial support. And it could get worse: some estimates put the potential job losses at 124,000. That is a significant impact.
It appears that everybody is calling for a sector deal for aviation—including, by the way, the Chancellor. It was not that long ago that the Chancellor reflected that the Government would have to make such an intervention. I am sure the conversation was had around the Cabinet table. So, where is the plan that we all—including the industry— were expecting, to capture all this into a sector deal?
On the funding that has been given to airline operators, why has there not been the conditionality to protect the loyal workforce? It is on the record, in the response to my written question that was published on 3 September: there was no protection for the workforce.
Why have the Government not done more to protect the staff at British Airways? Significant public money has gone into BA, but there is silence on the Government Benches. Why did the Government give £600 million to easyJet while turning a blind eye to £174 million being paid out in shareholder dividends—and when? When the virus was at its peak. Imagine saying there is no money and coming cap in hand, but paying out that amount in dividends. Where were the conditions to protect our environment and lead the charge to reduce carbon emissions? None of this is good enough. We need better and more concerted action from the Government.
And all that comes before we get on to quarantine. Before quarantine was introduced, more than 20 million passengers came into this country without any restrictions in place whatsoever. We were one of the last countries in the world to introduce either partial or full restrictions. Then, almost as a knee-jerk action, we saw the introduction of a 14-day, blunt-tool quarantine with almost no notice, causing absolute devastation to an industry already on its knees.
We were then promised air bridges. The idea of an air bridge is that two countries have an agreement about passenger transfer from one to the other. We did not get that: half the countries on the list had restrictions on British passengers on arrival. That is not an air bridge. This is why there was confusion: people were literally booking holidays only to discover that they would have to quarantine in the other country, potentially for 14 days.
There is now a refusal to take action on a pragmatic suggestion to have testing at airports, obviously with a test five days afterwards to make sure that the risk is captured. It will never be about one intervention by itself, so it is not good enough to say, “Well, you’ll only capture this percentage at the airport, and that wouldn’t be enough”; it is about the range of interventions that, taken together, put this country in the best possible position.
The Government need to do more. There will be more job losses if they do not take concerted action and have a coherent plan. A new Minister is in place now—step up to the plate, please.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
May I start by congratulating the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), on securing this debate on the unprecedented challenges that the aviation sector faces as a result of the covid-19 pandemic? I also wish to thank everyone in the sector who has worked so hard to keep vital services running throughout—a sentiment that I am sure is shared by all Members across the House.
I hope that the House will indulge me if I say what an honour it is to represent the aviation and maritime sectors in government. Both sectors have a long and proud history, demonstrating the strength of the UK at home and abroad. It is also somewhat intimidating, and perhaps a little impertinent, as a new Minister with one complete day’s experience in office, to respond to a debate of such knowledge and passion. We have heard from a former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); a former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling); a former Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard); a former Maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani); a former Health Minister; no fewer than two Transport Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood); and a great number of right hon. and hon. Members who have strong constituency interests and expertise. I am conscious that not all of those Members could be called to speak today, but they bring vast experience.
Heathrow alone has mobilised a large cadre of support from my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey).
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) represents three airports. He also made a very good point about veterans, which I have heard. We also have the huge experience of my deeply respected hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who spoke on behalf of Gatwick. Southampton airport has been represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) and for Winchester (Steve Brine). Exeter airport was ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), who has made a huge impact in a short time. Luton airport was represented by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). Newquay airport was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). Southend airport and Birmingham airport would have been spoken about, had time allowed, as would Glasgow airport, by the hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands).
An enormous amount of regional expertise has been brought to the House today. In fact, the House even managed to bring a pilot into the debate, in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who brings even more expertise. The House has brought out the big guns today, as we heard in powerful speeches as we considered the importance of aviation to the UK.
Robert Courts
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope the House will understand that I have a great deal to get through and will not be able to give way many times.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the Minister and am pleased to see him in his place; I know that he has the experience and interest to take things forward in the way that we need. This might be the first request he has heard, but would he be prepared to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and myself as soon as possible to discuss the importance of the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland?
Robert Courts
Yes, I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other honourable colleagues. Indeed, I look forward to engaging with Members from across the House on this vital sector. He does very well to remind me of the importance of the aerospace sector, which hopefully I will come to in a moment, and regional connectivity, which I will also comment on.
As Members are aware, this is an incredibly challenging time for the crucial aviation sector. It underpins our economy by unlocking trade, investment and tourism, and it provides regional connectivity, but it has been badly impacted by covid. The Government are clear that aviation will recover and will play a crucial role in driving our economy forward. We are helping it to do that by supporting it through the crisis.
The steps that the Government have taken have been truly unprecedented and have enabled airlines, airports and ground handlers to benefit from a very significant amount of taxpayer support. These measures include the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility, which has enabled the sector to draw down £1.8 billion in support, helping airlines’ liquidity, and the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has seen the passenger and air freight transport sectors benefiting from £283 million of support, with 56,400 staff furloughed. These support measures, as well as the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, have all been available to the sector. Members will be mindful that I cannot comment on any commercially confidential matters relating to individual companies, but I can remind the House that the Government have been clear that we have always considered providing support to strategically important companies that can reasonably be expected to have a long-term viable future and whose failure or distress would cause disproportionate harm to the UK economy or society.
The support that the Government have provided has gone long beyond financial. In addition to the unprecedented cross-economy package of support that the aviation sector has utilised extensively, we have put in place several other practical measures to help the sector. In June, we published safer air travel guidance for passengers and operators, providing information that enables passengers to travel confidently by following the recommended measures to keep themselves and others safe. We have ensured connectivity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have protected consumers and supported the sector by confirming that we will stand behind the air travel trust fund.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston asked what the engagement unit has done. Well, I will tell her: we were the first country to produce safer travel guidelines for passengers and operators; we have introduced a unique travel corridor system to support the reopening of the sector while other countries kept their borders closed; we and the unit are continuing to work to establish options for possible testing approaches, ensuring that the health of the country is protected while supporting the sector’s recovery; and we have continued to work with the Civil Aviation Authority on regulatory easing during this unprecedented situation.
As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), these are also challenging times for the aerospace sector. The Government will be providing the sector with over £8.5 billion of support over the next three years through the covid corporate financing facility. I am particularly aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) about job losses from Rolls-Royce in their constituencies. We have heard a great deal about job losses and redundancies.
Robert Courts
I am so sorry, but I am short of time; I would give way if I could.
The Government do understand the scale of adjustment that the aviation sector has had to make and the tough commercial decisions that companies have faced, including redundancies. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield, for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Winchester and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on this issue. The impact of redundancies on employees and their families is serious. As Aviation Minister, I expect companies to approach these matters sensitively, remembering the dedication and professionalism that their employees have shown over many years, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) has quite rightly made clear; we have all met such employees in our constituencies. I commit to working openly with all sectors, as I hope companies will commit to working openly with their workforces to resolve these matters. I encourage companies to go beyond the minimum legal obligations at this time, and will be offering my support.
There are a number of things that I would like to speak about but cannot because I am out of time, including border health measures, travel corridors and testing. I apologise for not having given way to Members due to the amount that I have had to speak. I will conclude briefly by simply saying that the Government remain committed to working with the sector to ensure that this country remains the aviation nation.
Huw Merriman
On behalf of myself and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken with such passion and determination for the aviation sector. I particularly thank all those who have waited so patiently after putting in to speak but have not been able to. It is incredibly frustrating that an aviation sector worth £28 billion to our economy that employs 230,000 people directly and over 1 million through the supply chain does not get more than two hours of debate in which we can show our concern, but I do hope that those voices have been heard.
I welcome the views, determination and commitment of the Minister and the Government to stand by the aviation sector. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and I want to ensure that there is a collaborative approach, where we work with the Government to truly see better times ahead for the aviation sector.
I also thank all the amazing workforce who have got in touch with the Transport Committee. They are the kindest, most loyal people and workforce that I have ever come across, and they are well represented by their unions.
I want to send a message not just to the Government but to employers. We have used BA as the poster child here, and it is not too late to turn back. There is a new chief executive of BA’s parent group and I say to them: please change your mind and stand by your workforce; stand up for that great badge on your airliner, which is supposed to demonstrate the best of Britain; and do the best for your workforce.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the aviation sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are now going to suspend very briefly. Once both Dispatch Boxes have been sanitised and the main players are here, we will commence the next debate, and there will be a three-minute limit after the introduction.
Tourism: Covid-19
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the tourism industry after the covid-19 lockdown.
Tourism is so much more than just going on our summer holidays. I would like to thank everyone in the Chamber today who is clearly aware of the huge part the tourism industry plays in the whole UK economy, particularly in beautiful coastal communities such as mine in North Devon, where in places it accounts for 60% of jobs and income.
I applied for this debate many weeks before the Chancellor announced his excellent supportive measures on 8 July. The Chancellor acknowledged that the sector accounted for over 2 million jobs and 150,000 businesses, and while we cannot save every job or every business, he did commit to do whatever it takes. Indeed, his statement brought a tear to my eye in that so much support was coming forward: £4.6 billion in direct support through the VAT cut and the incredibly successful eat out to help out scheme, on top of the coronavirus job retention scheme, the business rate cut, grants, loans and so forth. There is no doubt that support has been forthcoming, and the three winter scenario so widely discussed back in May does now seem a dim memory.
With winter now very much on the horizon again, however, has the sector seen enough of a bumper season to be secure through the cold, dark, stormy winter days ahead? Initial data reports suggest not, with spending on national UK tourism down 50% in August 2020 versus August 2019, hotel spending down 63% and even self-catering down 8%, while yesterday’s limit to six people meeting will badly impact tourism businesses dependent on larger gatherings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Unfortunately, we do not have much time, but I will say this quickly. The council area I represent as the constituency MP is Ards and North Down, and the key core of the economic drive of that council is tourism, which is so important. Does the hon. Lady agree that where such councils have responsibility for the economic drive—and tourism is up there—those councils need help?
Selaine Saxby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The pandemic has indeed shone a light into many of our economic sectors, highlighting the interconnectivity of so many activities. Indeed, the plight of the aviation sector—the subject of our previous debate—is inextricably linked to the overseas visitors who are most notable by their absence this summer. We need no statistics to know that for many of us here, it is far easier to get across Westminster Bridge now, without having to navigate through crowds of tourists. Overseas visitors normally spend in excess of £28 billion each year visiting our fantastic tourist destinations—more than our normal domestic tourism expenditure. That should start alarm bells ringing about the current situation in our tourism sector.
In Devon, we see over 35 million visitors a year; 11% of the population across the entire county are employed in tourism, and the proportion is much higher in some Devonian constituencies such as mine. Devon alone estimates its tourism turnover to be down by £1.3 billion this year; nationally, the estimate is over £68 billion. I remember with alarming clarity, as we went into lockdown, despite my self-appointed role as the one-woman tourist board for North Devon in Westminster, calling for my tourism businesses to close their doors. Over 80% of tourism businesses closed, versus 24% of businesses overall; 75% of tourism employees have been furloughed, versus 27% of the working population. The sector was late to reopen, of course, and in many cases has not been able to open even to 50%.
Many sectors have had a difficult summer, and focusing on tourism in this debate is not to belittle the difficult experiences of others. Tourism has seen something of a resurgence, and the sun has come out this summer for some in the industry, much helped by the eat out to help out scheme. Self-catering and holiday parks have reported some great results, and forward bookings look robust. However, as I keep reminding people, winter really does not start until January in Devon. A stormy day at the seaside is worth travelling for, in its own way. I recall with great affection, as a child with my father, getting a soaking at high tide from a huge rogue wave, and I have enjoyed watching a few roar across the Atlantic coast outside my window, even during this summer recess.
Positivity is something we can bring to this debate, and I thank colleagues in all parts of the House who have visited my North Devon constituency this summer. We all have a role to play in boosting our tourist economies by encouraging visitors to come and see what many may have forgotten a British holiday has to offer. After being cooped up for months, the pandemic has reminded many of us of the benefits of wide open spaces, and our beaches and moors have seen huge influxes of visitors; our city and town centres, however, have not. Indoor attractions continue to struggle to approach break-even with social distancing, not to mention the plight of the coach industry, conference and exhibition venues, tour operators, airlines and, unfortunately, many more businesses.
The tourism industry was in good shape before the pandemic, with annual growth over the past five years exceeding 4%; however, it remained plagued by low productivity, with a transient temporary workforce. Because of the nature of those working in it—from young people working a summer job to migrants trying to make ends meet—high staff turnover has hampered the growth of the sector. Hopefully, initiatives such as T-levels and apprenticeships will help more young people to see tourism as a career option and not just a summer job.
The cut in VAT will enable more small independent tourist businesses to stay open into the winter. Many in the industry were campaigning for a VAT cut long before the pandemic, to encourage coastal communities to extend their tourism season rather than close their doors for the winter. Perhaps that VAT remaining in place longer is what we need to help the industry to respond and rebuild.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I know that the Minister—an excellent Minister—is listening carefully. I think that we can all agree that the longer the 5% VAT reduction is kept in place, the more we can sustain and develop our tourism economies as we go into the years ahead.
Selaine Saxby
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We need to agree what we want the tourism sector to look like in the future, but we must also ensure that it receives the support it needs to still be there when the pandemic is behind us.
The economic hit of the pandemic has further underlined the need to level up our regions. The productivity and attractiveness of beautiful coastal resorts, which we have in abundance in North Devon, are hampered by a lack of infrastructure, particularly broadband. Coastal communities were hit hard at the start of the pandemic with increased unemployment. Of the 20 towns with the highest increase in unemployment from March to April this year, eight are on the south-west peninsula and 18 are coastal communities. But other opportunities open up far more quickly in regions with many other lines of economic activity and more diverse local economies. The deprivation of our coastal communities is well documented, and the hit their tourism industries have taken will only make the situation worse. When we look to level up, I hope we can work to understand how our coastal communities, north and south, operate, and ensure investment will secure long-lasting improvements in opportunity for our young people.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
We also have lovely coastal communities in north Yorkshire, particularly in the shape of Filey. My hon. Friend talks about postponing the reintroduction of VAT. I absolutely support that, particularly as it will coincide, if it is reintroduced, with the repayment of other payments to HMRC and the payment of rates that restart. It would really help cash-flow pressures if it were delayed.
Selaine Saxby
Indeed. It is a far more complex issue than me standing here today and asking for more blanket support for the tourism industry.
Destination management organisations and industry bodies are working tirelessly in the background and are well placed to represent the sector. We need our DMOs to be more robust, with a sustainable funding mechanism. We need a clearer strategy and we need those long talked of tourism zones to become a reality. As we leave the EU, we must also look at reducing red tape, with the removal of travel package regulations, for example.
Some of the tourism sector may have been slowly eased off life support this August, but it is not ready to be discharged just yet, as I have illustrated. I hope the ingenuity and creativity displayed by the Treasury and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to date will be replicated in the coming months to give the tourism industry the leg up it so desperately needs to ensure we can welcome international visitors back, as well as those of us visiting parts of the UK to help out in the coming months.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, if he has an opportunity to intervene on me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on obtaining the debate and on how she set out her concerns. Tourism and the visitor economy are one of the main pillars of the economy and regeneration of Liverpool, my city. This has been the case especially since 2008 when it was European city of culture.
The entire city region’s visitor economy is worth more than £5 billion annually. The city region attracted 60 million visitors last year and employs more than 57,000 people. By the start of June, the lockdown and covid had cost the sector in Liverpool alone almost £1 billion, so the hon. Member is right to bring this issue to the Floor of the House. It is not only in our beautiful coastal areas that this has a major effect, so cultural tourism in Liverpool is not just a nice add-on; it is a fundamental part of the economy and the way forward in my city. To illustrate that, almost 50% of business rates revenue in Liverpool comes from the leisure, hospitality, digital, creative and culture sectors, so it is not just our beautiful seaside areas and counties where this is tremendously important.
Many aspects of this industry are likely to be the last to come out of lockdown. Even though the support that the furlough scheme has provided has been very welcome, I have still seen a doubling of unemployment in my constituency during lockdown. There are still 48,500 people furloughed in Liverpool, about one fifth of them in my constituency, and many of those jobs are at risk. They are in the visitor economy and the tourism sector and will be at risk if furlough ends.
One of my main asks of the Government is this. There are aspects of this industry that simply cannot go back to work or life as normal, such as the events industry and production, including sound and light production, which are huge in my constituency. They cannot go back to normal. The arenas and theatres are not open, and even if they do open, they cannot make money because of social distancing.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I have been a regular visitor to her city over the years, and anyone who goes there will have a wonderful experience. The tour operator and travel agent sectors, both inbound and outbound, conform to exactly what she described. It has not only been difficult for them to conduct business. It was impossible to furlough many members of staff because they had a lot of work to do, taking calls from customers who wanted or needed to cancel bookings. Does she agree that we need to recognise the nuances and differences within the industry, while celebrating the return of visitors to many of our cities, towns and villages?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. Some organisations would have furloughed if they did not have so much work to do, not that it was necessarily productive work, in the normal sense, that would make money for the company. He is right to identify that issue.
If I have one ask for the Government, it is not to treat these industries in a one-size-fits-all way. When furlough ends at the end of October, parts of the visitor economy and tourism sector—the things that attract people to Liverpool—will still not be able to go back to business as usual or work at all. These are fundamentally sound businesses. Our events industry is brilliant, and it will be brilliant again when social distancing has gone—it will stand on its own two feet and make money—but it will not be there if the Government do not do something beyond the end of furlough to ensure that these fundamentally sound businesses still exist.
Once gone, these businesses will not come back. Their work will simply be done by other organisations in Europe and elsewhere, and we will lose the advantage that we have in lighting and sound production for gigs and tours. That will not be there anymore, and it will not be making money for UK plc. Our visitor and tourism economy will not be able to attract the people it has done from overseas to our shores in future if those industries are not there.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this timely and important debate on tourism, and I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for securing it.
As we all know, tourism has been one of the sectors worst affected by covid-19, and I echo a lot of what my hon. Friend said. Naturally, the sector had to be closed down by the Government because of coronavirus, but it has been hugely economically affected. In the south-west, we have a large tourism sector that supports our region’s economy. Job losses will not be limited to hospitality. Significant losses will be felt in the food production and supply chains too, and of course, in rural areas, food, farming and tourism are intricately linked.
Despite an increase in staycations this summer and the help from Treasury, with the eat out to help out scheme, the furlough scheme and tax holidays, the tourism sector has still suffered huge losses because of covid-19. VisitBritain has collected data from across the country and estimates a minimum loss in revenue of some £68 billion for the tourism sector this year. According to a survey by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in June, 92% of tourism businesses say that their revenue has decreased by more than 50%, and 62% say that they will not be viable businesses within six months. That survey was three months ago, so time is of the essence if we are to ensure that our tourism and hospitality businesses survive the winter. Due to covid-19 and the lockdown, our hospitality and tourism sector missed out on half the holiday season. Even now, about one third of businesses in our region can only operate at 75% capacity, so viability remains an issue.
So what can we do? The first and most important thing is to maintain the VAT reduction for the tourism and hospitality sector through to Easter next year at the very least, because that will encourage visitors and keep businesses going. The reduction in VAT to 5% has reduced outgoings for our businesses throughout the summer, and I think it is best that the Government continue giving that support, to help businesses to plan. Ahead of the autumn Budget, I ask Ministers to lobby the Chancellor to keep VAT at 5%. I also ask the Government to consider extending the business rates holiday beyond April next year. We have a very able and good Tourism Minister, but it will take the tourism industry some years to recover from these losses.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Tourism in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Government, but it has always been a valued part of our economy and, as this pandemic has hit us, it lies at the centre of the relationship between England and Wales, particularly north Wales. There has been a trend towards tourism from other parts of the European Union, but the bulk of tourism in the north is from English tourists—tourists often visiting for the day. Tourists climb our mountains, they swim from our beaches, they ramble on our countryside and they eat and drink our wonderful Welsh produce. There will always be a welcome to those who come to experience our country responsibly. We have seen some confusion, as the media would have it—confusion over the rules in England on the one hand and the rules in the UK on the other. Responsibility for much of this confusion lies with the media themselves and with the Government in London. The UK Government must be more consistent by making it clearer when they are acting as the Government of England, and I urge the media to follow suit.
Tourism has grown over the decades and we welcome that, but covid has led to a sharp spike in numbers. The effect of a jump in the population of a seaside village from, say, 1,000 to 10,000 is as profound as hundreds of thousands of people heading for Bournemouth or for Brighton. This not only makes it more difficult for local people, but spoils the visitor experience for tourists themselves.
There has been a welcome push for quality in the tourist offering in Wales over the years. This is one of the key steps to our recovery after covid, which is why we as a party are advocating sustainable quality tourism in Wales, respecting our environments and our cultural and linguistic riches. The industry is losing half of its earning capacity this season, so while we welcome the UK Government’s decision to provide VAT relief, I urge them to introduce a permanent VAT reduction to 5% for the hospitality industry, which is something that was allowed by the European Union in 2008 and which has been studiously ignored by Chancellors of both main parties ever since. But we need to do a good deal more. Time is short today, so I will say only that devolving real power and resources to support employment is an obvious further step and that it is truly deplorable that the furlough scheme is being withdrawn much, much too early.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The great city of Edinburgh, more than most, welcomes people from across the globe. Members will be familiar with our city’s wonderful arts festivals, but its year-round reputation attracts visitors all the time. Combined with that, the conference centre stimulates business tourism and, of course, the city is a gateway to the rest of Scotland.
So tourism and hospitality are vital for the city’s economy. Some 33,000 jobs depend upon it. So it is almost impossible to overstate the harmful effect that the public health restrictions due to the pandemic have had on that sector. Last year, 1.5 million people came through Edinburgh airport in July. This year, the figure was 170,000. Last year, more than 3 million people visited Princes Street in August; this year, it was less than a quarter of that number. Half of our hotel rooms were empty this summer. Our visitor attractions were down 90% and, of course, our venues and theatres remain dark.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate defence of Edinburgh, but he will share my concern that our islands, such as the Isle of Arran and the Isle of Cumbrae, have also suffered particularly badly. Despite my pleas to the Chancellor, the requests for extra help for these islands have gone unanswered. Does he not agree that sometimes support is needed because it is a question of sustainability for our island communities?
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed I do and I shall come on to that. At the core of this dilemma is the fact that the essence of these industries—hospitality and tourism—is bringing people together. Social distancing is the antithesis of what these industries grew up for, yet they are going to have to try to manage the problem. Everyone understands the necessity and requirement for the guidelines to be enforced, nobody more so than those working in these industries. The question is how we can manage.
We have all seen firms in our cities and towns trying to operate with reduced capacity. I have seen it myself in my constituency. Last month, in Perthshire on a family holiday, I stayed at several hotels and ate at several restaurants, all doing their utmost to conform to the guidelines that are to be enforced and, indeed, taking pride in their ability to keep their customers safe.
Behind the brave faces, however, there is a deep and dark despair. It is the despair that comes from knowing that, at the end of a hard shift, more money has left their bank account than went into it, no matter what they do. The truth is, for pretty much all those businesses, those reduced capacity operations are unviable in the longer term, although they do two things: they postpone the date at which money runs out completely, because they slow the rate of loss; and, more importantly, they retain some jobs, and capacity and expertise in the sector, so that when the restrictions change, they can spring back.
That is why I believe that the No. 1 priority now must be to look at those businesses and see how we can support their reduced capacity operation through to next spring. That means we have to abandon this silly, one-size-fits-all blanket policy that treats all businesses as if they were the same. We need a more sophisticated, more tailored and more targeted approach that works with individual businesses and tries to get them through to a position next spring when they will be no worse off than they are now. Support will also be required beyond that—even if the restrictions are lifted, it will take time for public confidence to return and for the market to get back to where it was at pre-covid levels. We should be planning for two to three years of further support.
It is right that the public purse should do that, because businesses are closed and closing because of public policy and a public imperative. That must be the priority. The Government cannot abandon support on 31 October, stand back and watch the sectors decline.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate on the tourism industry. It is much needed and most welcome.
I am encouraged by the continued low level of cases of coronavirus in Devon, despite the number of visitors to East Devon, who provided much-needed cash flow into our economy. Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth, Ottery Saint Mary and Topsham enjoyed summer safely, with people flocking to East Devon to lap up the sunshine, and to enjoy many culinary delights with a discount, thanks to the eat out to help out scheme from the Chancellor.
In fact, I did not manage to visit as many restaurants as I would have liked, as many were fully booked all week—great news for the businesses and, arguably, my waistline—and 202,000 meals were discounted in East Devon. Speaking to many people who work in hospitality on my travels, the scheme helped to show the wolf the door and to bolt it shut. I, too, regularly speak with tourism industry leaders, and they tell me that the scheme had an astonishingly good reception from businesses in Devon, some of which were cynical at the start.
Devon is not just famous for food; it is also our beautiful countryside, rolling hills and stunning cliffs. However, our tourism industry still faces a cliff edge that few want to see. It is estimated that about £2.2 billion of anticipated tourism business turnover has been lost in the south-west in the first six months of this year. If we also consider the tourism supply chain, that is a further loss of £468 million to our economy. Business turnover has halved. Only 30% of businesses in the south-west anticipate that they will survive beyond summer 2021. Let us give them hope and optimism, and reassure them that we are on their side every step of the way.
The temporary 5% reduced VAT rate, supporting tourism, hospitality and leisure businesses, comes to an end on 12 January next year. That measure is helping businesses to survive, as they stick to the guidelines and adjust their businesses to keep staff, customers and guests safe. I understand that the Treasury keeps taxes under regular review, and I sincerely hope that it is reviewing this measure and considering an extension. The measures put in place by this Government undoubtedly saved thousands of jobs across the south-west, but sadly our tourism industry is not out of the woods yet and further support is needed to help it to survive and thrive. We simply cannot afford the alternative.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
In 2018, tourism brought in 5.5 million visitors, 3.5 million of whom were from overseas, and with them came £5 billion to the Scottish economy, but I want to look at the heart of the tourism industry: the coach sector—the wheels on which the tourism industry literally runs. Tourists do not come here to see our outstanding airports, vital though they are—and I know they have their own challenges; they come to see our country and they see it on a coach. The haulage industry is rightly proud that whatever we purchase in a shop, it got there on the back of a lorry, and so is with our tourists. Wherever they go—hotels, visitor centres, theatres and restaurants—they get there by coach, yet the coach industry has received negligible support, especially when compared with the billions that the Government have spent on their covid response. And let us not forget that it is coaches that are the first and only port of call when trains disrupt and flights divert. That is a further warning that the Government take this industry for granted at their peril.
Many coach operators are family enterprises, not run for vast profit or easy money but instead reinvesting in the long term in their fleets and their drivers.
Jim Shannon
One of the important things about the coach companies is that many of them are family owned. There are three or four in my constituency and they are all family owned. The impact on those families has been dire, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is where the help is needed?
Dave Doogan
I agree entirely with the hon. Member. The nature of the business is absolutely exceptional, with its organic growth and investing to ensure that passengers get the absolute best experience. These businesses have paid handsomely into the Exchequer for decades, while never troubling the taxpayer for Government support. These are the businesses that the Government must now stand behind—if not for them, then for the 40,000 people employed in the coach sector. And if not for them, then for the £14 billion generated for the UK Exchequer every year by the sector. There is nowhere left for the Government to hide on this issue.
I would like to share with the Minister the example of one such company in my constituency, Black’s of Brechin. It has been family owned across the generations, proudly operating a modern fleet of luxury coaches that reflect very well on our outstanding tourist offer in Angus and more widely across Scotland. The managing director, Robert Black, was the first Angus business representative to contact me at the start of the pandemic. Black’s is a business with a focus not only on daily operations but on the strategic, looking for the threats and opportunities lying ahead. Not long after that phone call, all opportunity for Black’s of Brechin and every other coach operator up and down these islands evaporated, being replaced by overwhelming risk.
With lockdown, tourism stopped overnight. There were mass cancellations of coach tours, wedding hires, golf trips and football hires. Every single booking was cancelled, and although the tourism market theoretically reopened in July, that will not facilitate a recovery for the coach sector any time soon. What Robert Black said to me in that phone call in March has come to pass. He said that the coach industry would be the first to be hit, that it would be one of the hardest hit and that it would likely be the last to recover. I would add that without Government support, many operators will almost certainly not recover, although as we have heard, these are viable businesses. There is scarce time left to save the coach sector. The industry is in the midst of an 18 to 24-month winter, and furlough is due to end in the coming weeks. The Government told us that they would do “whatever it takes”. The fiscal levers rest here in Westminster, and the Government must act now.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) will be pleased to know that I am going to speak on the same theme. What is tourism? The word “tour” comes from the Old French, meaning “round” or “circuit”. In essence, to tour means to complete a round trip—to visit and then return. Modern tourism, with the traveller in pursuit of recreation, naturally involves a round trip. A round trip needs transport, and transport needs infrastructure and vehicles.
County Durham and Sedgefield include the birthplace of public transport itself, in the form of the first passenger railway in the world. Locomotion No. 1 is the first and oldest passenger train in the world, and it still rightfully resides next to me in Darlington. With County Durham giving birth to rail travel, dare I say that we also gave birth to the possibility of widespread tourism and the great British tradition of the staycation? In the current climate, I encourage all to revisit this tradition and invite you to come and enjoy the wealth of what Sedgefield and County Durham have to offer, including preparations for the bicentenary of the Darlington to Stockton railway, which was the first passenger railway in the world, as I said.
My constituents also like to travel elsewhere and need the means to do that. We need to make a concerted effort to retain and enhance our travel infrastructure and to allow the industry to recover and grow. We need to keep up the momentum that covid has threatened to slow. On this topic, I must mention Ferryhill station, the two words I probably mention most in the Chamber. Rebuilding stations such as Ferryhill will support the sector and, following covid-19, provide much needed momentum for the future, but that is in the medium term.
In the short term, I would like to highlight the problems of coach travel, one of the more immediate fixes that the tourist industry needs. Ninety-eight per cent. of coaches that would normally be on the road this summer were mothballed due to a lack of demand. One coach operator, which carries 40,000 passengers, carried 200. Mr Neville Jones of J&C Coaches, a family-run business in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, is illustrative of so many coach companies across Britain. It has also suffered because of the closed schools—it provides the same service to them. Coach operators are the glue that holds the tourist industry together. They are vital to the local, national and international tourist markets. They get us to Durham, to Devon, to cruises, to flights—and even to Angus.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport, the trade association for coaches, has made recommendations to potentially buffer the effect on the sector, and I encourage Government action in consideration of the following: extending finance holidays to ensure that no coaches are repossessed; grouping the coach travel sector with the leisure sector to give it better support; and providing protection to those families whose livelihoods rely on coach travel. There needs to be a moratorium on lenders seeking to repossess family homes.
Although I have talked specifically about coach travel in Sedgefield, I am sure that we can agree that it is important to the whole country. Coaches need to be supported to help British tourism. Without coaches, tourism is devastated.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called in today’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thirty thousand people in York work in the hospitality, tourism and leisure sector. That is one in four jobs in my constituency, and we are really worried about the impact that this virus has had on our local economy, for obvious reasons, and particularly in the small and independent sector. Normally, we would see 8 million visitors come to enjoy York and it is understandable why that is—whether it is indoors or out, visiting the minster, the museums or visitor attractions, taking part in the small independent retail offer that we have, walking the walls of the city, enjoying the green spaces, or simply wandering through the medieval streets or around the snickets. But with covid-19, our streets became silent and doors shut, and many have yet to open. Of course, this was just at a time when our city was picking up from the floods. Our city describes this as entering into our third winter in a row and we desperately need help now.
I have three requests for the Minister. First, the reputation of our city will be built on our city being safe, and that is why we need an excellent test and trace system in York. I ask him to make representations to the Department of Health and Social Care for our city to have a walk-in centre for testing. It would be a game-changer for tourism, because we cannot expect visitors who come in by train to then go out to a drive-in centre for testing. We also know that many people in our city will want to get out again quickly, so I ask not only for a walk-in centre, but that we become a pilot for the rapid tests that are to be introduced.
Secondly, I want to come on to the issue of furlough. Yes, we did debate it yesterday, but it seems that a bit more persuasion is needed. We absolutely need furlough to be extended. Currently, in my constituency alone, I have 17,700 people who are furloughed. They are facing a cliff edge unless there is further support. When Government Members say, “How long?”, I would say to the Minister: let us extend and then review. Let us extend it beyond Christmas and review it in the new year, and then take it forward from there. We do not know what is going to happen over the next few months. There could be a national lockdown or local lockdowns. Perhaps the virus will die out. Perhaps the vaccine will arrive. Therefore, let us take this step by step as we go.
Thirdly, I ask that the Minister meets tourism leaders in my city to understand the rescue package we need, because this recovery is going to take time. So much money has been lost from the sector to date and we really want to make sure that we are a success going forward. If he would be so kind to do that, I am sure our sector leaders would really engage with him and help him to put the right package together for the future.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate. Since her election in December, and throughout the pandemic, she has consistently spoken up for the tourism sector, securing guidance and support. I commend her for her efforts.
I understand the value of tourism, having grown up in New Zealand, a country that remade itself in the 1980s and ’90s by making tourism its biggest export—apart from the All Blacks, of course. The history of tourism in this country, however, goes back much further and has been a hugely successful part of our economy. British culture has an extensive reach around the world. In 2018, 37.9 million people came from abroad and spent £22.9 billion to experience that culture and history first-hand. Very sadly, covid-19 and the subsequent lockdown have had an inevitable impact on our tourism sector. I welcome measures taken by the Government to help to mitigate that impact, most notably: the business grants in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors; the business rates holiday for 12 months; the tax deferral scheme; cutting VAT from 20% to 5% until January 2021; and the enormous success of the eat out to help out scheme, which has been a lifesaver for many businesses in the tourism sector. I recognise the calls from colleagues across the House to extend the VAT cut. I join them in that call.
The cultural rescue package put together by the Government, worth £1.57 billion and delivered through local community funds and the National Lottery Heritage Fund, has made a difference to the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre and the Watts Gallery in Guildford. Guildford may be renowned for its history, culture and heritage assets, but there are also wonderful family-friendly activities, with the Surrey County Show, the biggest agricultural event in the south-east, Wild Wood Adventure and swimming in the Guildford Lido, as well as stunning walks along the North Downs Way. Cranleigh, to the south, has made adaptations to part of its wonderful village high street, with outdoor eating displays alongside its famous attraction of independent shops, which have made it a truly enjoyable summer for visitors and locals alike. I hope that some of those innovations will continue into the future.
We have just had an amazing August bank holiday bonanza weekend in Guildford, where retailers saw their best ever trade since lockdown. I would like to put on record my thanks to the enormous energy of Stuart Alexander of Big Mouth Guildford, working in conjunction with Amanda Masters of Experience Guildford, Guildford Borough Council and the local radio station, Kane FM. The work that residents do to support local businesses and make our tourism destinations vibrant to ensure success beyond this global pandemic is truly heart-warming and encouraging. The partnership between government and our community is vital for our future success.
In conclusion, as someone who came to live in this fantastic country over two decades ago and who understands what draws those from overseas to this green and pleasant land, I can say with confidence that as we come out of the global pandemic we will see a revitalisation of our tourism sector.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There are so many things that draw visitors from around the world to Bath. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Roman Baths and Pump Room, and the Herschel Museum. Between them, they have recently won three of Visit England’s 19 annual awards of excellence. We welcome 6.5 million visitors a year and employ approximately 9,000 people in tourism-related businesses. Covid-19, however, has been catastrophic for our local industry not just nationally, but globally. In Bath alone, the loss of the visitor economy in 2020 is estimated to be about £350 million. Our local authority has been particularly exposed to the financial impact of the pandemic. Tourist attractions are a large source of income for our council and it means less money for vital services for our residents.
Locally, we have had conversations about diversifying our economy and making it more resilient in the longer term, but businesses in this sector need urgent support now to make sure they survive. Organisations such as the Bath Preservation Trust are working hard to safely reopen their venues, but they have to operate at a significantly reduced capacity. Reopening will barely be viable. It is a great shame that Bath Christmas market will not go ahead this year. Visit Bath, Bath BID and Bath Festivals are working on an exciting programme of events to hold instead. It is great to see organisations looking at innovative ways to safely support our local economy. However, with many seasonal events postponed, this off-peak time will still be a big challenge. Destination management organisations will be essential in rebuilding confidence in the tourism industry. They provide crucial support for local businesses, including through marketing. They will be crucial in the recovery of the wider tourism economy, but they are very vulnerable now and they, too, need urgent support.
I draw attention to the difficulties faced by the English language teaching centres, of which there are several in my constituency. For students at those schools, visiting the UK is about far more than learning English; it is a cultural experience. They stay with local families and they visit our attractions. More than 500,000 ELT students bring £1.4 billion to the UK economy annually, and that important industry anticipates it will lose more than 80% of this year’s business. I urge the Government to listen to the industry’s call for short-term support by including ELT in the business rates holiday and supporting the Study UK campaign.
Bath brings so much to the south-west and the wider economy, and I look forward to working with the Minister to provide further support to this vital industry.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. She and I and all members of the Devon community have been working together over the past six months to ensure that tourism and hospitality have a strong voice in this place. Groups such as the Devon economic recovery organisation are looking forward to supporting the sector further as we go into a troubling winter and 2021.
For many businesses across my constituency, it has been a successful summer, but one where they faced great difficulties. Huge demand in areas such as Salcombe, Dartmouth, Brixham and Paignton has led to residents being faced with people visiting being rude and trying to escape covid in certain cases. That is not acceptable, but those who work in our sector have been true heroes in trying to regain their losses from the lockdown, restore confidence in their sector and make sure they can see a path forward through this winter.
A few months ago, we put together a letter calling for the Government to cut VAT to 5% for tourism and hospitality, and I am delighted that the Government listened. I am delighted that so many Members across the House have supported the calls for a continuation of VAT at 5%. That will be the necessary breathing space for so many of those businesses. It will give them the chance to get through this winter and face 2021 with a great deal more cash in their bank account, but also the understanding that the Government are on their side.
The other suggestion that I would like to put forward, which has been mentioned by a few Members across the House, is that of rebranding VisitBritain from a worldwide campaign to a new domestic campaign that will promote domestic tourism. We have great things on offer across the country, and we should be highlighting what they can provide to our own residents and citizens.
The third point I would like to touch on is flexibility between the rural and urban sectors of tourism. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) will touch on the issue, but there is a great distinction between rural and urban tourism, and there needs to be flexibility in how we engage and support those sectors. That is a call not just for more money, but to understand how those sectors work and how we can support them as new measures come in around social distancing or as this virus plays out over the winter.
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) touched on transport and coaches and all of that, but we must also look at how we can improve transport. The Government are improving local and rural transport links, and that can also encourage a drive in domestic tourism. Easier access to rail and more ability to get to those communities across our country should give us the ability to draw more demand.
This sceptred isle set in a sea of silver will surely welcome people back in the future, and I look forward to our communities all working together to drive such demands.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I also add my congratulations to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate. The domestic tourism sector is what I want to concentrate on in my remarks this afternoon. I sort of view it as being a network of distinct micro-economies mutually supportive of each other. Just in Warwick and Leamington some 4,000 people are employed in the sector, and in south Warwickshire the number is 13,000. That accounts for three quarters of a billion pounds in GDP, so it is a significant contribution to our local economy.
We have in the constituency Warwick castle, which is clearly a destination of choice—perhaps preferable to other castles in the north of the country where certain people choose to go. I campaigned for its reopening back in June because it was being held back by legislation that was preventing the operation of its food and beverage outlets. Fortunately, the Government and local authority saw the sense in allowing the castle to reopen, but it lost half its key trading period and is now operating at 60% of capacity.
Nearby, we have the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford, which is not in my constituency but is mutually supportive of the local micro-economy. The RSC has really struggled, losing 75% of its income. Most worrying of all is that it now has to face going into a formal consultation with its staff and the unions from October.
I mentioned the local economic system or ecosystem; both the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) mentioned the coach industry, which sort of lubricates the tourist sector. I spoke to Ridleys, which is based in Warwick. Some 75% of its business was in the touring sector; it has now had to switch to providing services for schools. Ridleys has been lucky—other coach companies have gone to the wall—but the staff there are really angry because they do not see any consistency from the Government. Why is it that 300 people can get on an aeroplane and sit cheek by jowl for three hours, but people cannot get on a coach and do the same thing? I urge the Government to revisit that issue urgently; it would be one of the simplest things they could do to support the industry.
In summary, I would like to see more targeted support—specifically, the extension of the furlough scheme—and I urge the Government, as have others in the Chamber, to extend the VAT cut beyond January next year. In fact, I ask the Government to consider a permanent VAT cut, sitting at 10% going forwards. That is the sort of thing that could underpin the tourist and hospitality sector for the future.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on having secured this debate. I offer my apologies: I have been scrutinising the Fisheries Bill, but look forward to reading her speeches and those of others in Hansard tomorrow.
Tourism is a vital part of west Norfolk’s economy, with visitors coming to enjoy our wonderful coastline, countryside, heritage, food attractions, drink and a lot more. The local visitor economy is worth around £500 million, with tourism and related jobs making up a fifth of all employment. Last year, 2019, was a record year for tourism in Norfolk, and this was meant to be another year of growth, but the covid lockdown has hit the area hard and had a disproportionate impact among young people, who hold around a third of the travel and tourism jobs in the sector, compared with just 12% of jobs more generally.
My constituents are grateful for the bold package of support that the Government put in place for tourism and hospitality businesses; it provided a lifeline and desperately needed cash flow. Despite firms being able to trade in the late summer, that has not mitigated the time when they had no income—especially when 70% of business activity normally takes place between April and October. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is a great champion of the sector, knows that the business rates holiday and the cut in VAT have been warmly welcomed. I join others who have spoken in this debate in support of the calls from the sector to extend both those measures to help to boost the sector.
As well as fiscal measures, one of the best things we can do to encourage people support tourism is to have staycations and visit coastal and rural areas. I was pleased and delighted when the Prime Minister, in this House, encouraged people to come to sunny Hunny for their staycation. I took his advice and had a lovely week in a camper van, going around my constituency—including to Hunstanton, Brancaster and Burnham—and enjoying the wildlife, pubs, historic King’s Lynn and all there is to offer.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know from his visit to Norfolk—I invite him to venture into west Norfolk next time—that all the local authorities and marketing organisations are working together for the first time on the Unexplored England campaign, to boost this season and encourage bookings for next year. The extension of the all-year-round economy and off-season experiences, and the reduction of the reliance on peak months, are all key to driving productivity and growth.
In addition to encouraging visitors, we should do all we can to reduce red tape, so I support the calls from Deepdale Backpackers & Camping in my constituency to waive or extend the 28-day farmland rule to provide more flexibility to take advantage of the home tourism market.
Finally, we need to look to the future, and a significant opportunity is to become one of the new tourism zones. Norfolk and Suffolk should be at the front of the queue, with much work having been done by Visit East of England. Our pitch will focus on being the most sustainable tourism destination, with a strong sector skills offer for young people. I will be championing that bid, and I look forward to discussing it with this and other Ministers.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I apologise for not having been here for most of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have been trying to multi-task today and have been failing miserably.
I wish to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) about the reduced VAT rate, as I, along with many others, have been campaigning for that for many years. It is a welcome move, but, as he said, it requires a bit more consideration, with a view to a more open-minded approach from the Treasury to see it extended. I believe it is due to run until January or February of next year, but we are talking about people who have come out of six months of winter into spring of this year, when they were earning very little, and then been closed down for most of what would be their economically productive season. Accordingly, they simply have not opened up and they will be going back into their quiet season again, with a view to going back into their full productive effort around Easter next year, by which time the benefit of a reduced VAT rate is not going to be there for them.
I also say to Treasury Ministers, through the Minister on the Front Bench, that one of their objections to a reduced VAT rate for the visitor economy over the years has always been that they do not think it would have the effect on the tax take that is claimed for it. After a significant period at the reduced rate, if it is extended beyond that which we have at the moment, we will have reliable data that should settle that question once and for all. The case for a continuation of the VAT reduction period is strong.
As the local economy in the Northern Isles was opening up over the summer months, I was able to go out, and as the visitor economy is so important for us, I took time to talk to hoteliers. The thing that came across to me loud and clear was their frustration at having no control over so many of the things they need to rebuild their businesses and get money back into our community.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
As an MP for an island constituency, like me, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the financial packages provided by this Government are particularly important for island and coastal communities?
Mr Carmichael
They are absolutely important for island and coastal communities, because there are so many different ways in which we do not control our own destiny. I talked to hoteliers at the north end of Shetland, one of whom was particularly frustrated because they had had so many group bookings cancelled—NorthLink Ferries had cancelled the bookings from the tour companies themselves. That Government-provided service should be running for the benefit of the community, but, for reasons that were perhaps understandable but which came without the necessary consultation, these people had been left without the proper control. As we begin to rebuild the visitor economy, in the Northern Isles and elsewhere, the one plea I make to Government in London and in Edinburgh is that the communities that rely on the visitor economy should be given the power to do that for themselves. They are the people who know best what they need, and they need to be listened to. Give them the tools to rebuild our tourism industry and they will do the job for us.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
With the greatest respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are an iconic global tourist attraction—we all are. We sit here in the Palace of Westminster, which usually welcomes thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of visitors every year. They are not here and not here in central London now. That is why I am so delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) has secured this debate, because it is so important. Because I could not go and visit my brother in the States this year, due to the crisis, I am delighted that I went and spent my holiday in her constituency. I went to Croyde, and to a holiday camp run by that well-known holiday operator, Unison.
Central London is home to hundreds of millions of visitors every year, but they are not here. Over this crisis I have learned how important the ecosystem of the tourism, hospitality, leisure and retails sectors is for central London and across the country. For every £1 spent in theatres, another £5 is spent in the local economy. Sadly, theatres remain closed, although I hope we can open them again soon. Other cultural and leisure visitor attractions such as casinos have just opened, and I know that the owners of the Hippodrome and Grosvenor Casinos are delighted with that.
I am delighted with how the Government have supported those industries and sectors during covid. The outstanding Eat Out to Help Out scheme saw 890,000 meals eaten just in Westminster and the City of London. I am delighted that Grosvenor, a huge property estate owner in Mayfair and Belgravia, is now extending that scheme, and supporting small and independent restaurants and cafes in that area throughout this month. We all have a role to play. Westminster Council has just launched its new campaign, Sightsee crowd free, and I urge all Members to get out and enjoy the fantastic sites—there are 62 iconic sites in Westminster alone, let alone in the City of London. Members should enjoy those sites, support the local economy, bring their families, and have a great time. It is so important to support tourism in London and get Londoners out, as well as to support the amazing attractions.
Nickie Aiken
I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
Finally, I urge everyone to enjoy the special tourist attractions offered by central London, and the whole of London.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I apologise to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and other Members, because my time in the Scottish Affairs Committee prevented me from hearing some of the contributions this afternoon. The tourism industry plays an incredibly important role in my constituency, and every year from March to October, Fife is full of tourists who come to explore its beautiful beaches, the fishing villages of the East Neuk, and towns such as Cupar and St Andrews, the home of golf. Because of the pandemic, all that has been put on hold. Businesses planned and made investments over the winter, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, preparing themselves for a season that never started.
I wish to use my short time this afternoon to highlight a couple of specific cases from my constituency. The first is a small tourism business that operates from St Andrews. It drives golfers and tourists around Fife and all over Scotland from March to October. It employs three tour operators, and received a grant under the self-employment income scheme. When the schemes and grants started, it was all about making it through the summer, and trying to make the most of the rest of the season. In reality, however, there is no business for them. The business relies on Swedish and American tourists, and none of those have come. It is ploughing all its money into getting to March 2021, when hopefully the new tourism season will begin. If the support schemes end, however, it will not make it. It will go out of business. It told me, “It’s people like us who work and pay our taxes, and we will fall through the cracks with no help”.
The second case is a hospitality company that relies heavily on the tourism industry for events. It had difficulty accessing grants, but eventually it received one from the self-employment income scheme. Its staff have been furloughed, but my constituent tells me that the money is almost gone. If funding for the self-employed is not continued, or furlough kept on by some means until events can safely reopen and a portion of staff wages be reimbursed, the company will go down, and people feel as if they do not have a voice. My constituent told me that she had been shrewd all her life and always kept enough money in case something went badly wrong, but that is not enough to keep the business going for 18 months with no income.
I want to highlight the situation faced by the many seasonal workers in my constituency who work in hospitality and other industries, mainly from March to October. They never started their contracts in the first place, and have been left to discover that the safety net of welfare has many, many holes. The messages from all these businesses and many more in North East Fife is clear. These small businesses, their owners and their staff work incredibly hard year in, year out. The Government’s support has so far worked for them—these businesses are still running and their staff are still employed—but they are all clearly saying that unless there is further support for the tourism industry, it will be game over.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a former director of a tourism business that has benefited significantly from the Government’s covid interventions. That said, which tourism business has not? As the former managing director of that tourism business, I operated in England, Scotland and Wales—in many of the constituencies represented in the House today—so I know at first hand the existential difficulties that leisure and tourism businesses have gone through during 2020.
Being closed down by the Government in March, at the very lowest ebb of their seasonal cash flow, had countless thousands of domestic tourism businesses, including my own former business, facing the certainty of liquidation in a matter of weeks. Time really mattered. Every Member of the House will recall the desperate pleas for assistance from fundamentally strong businesses at the very edge of a cash flow crisis, but no one at that time could have foreseen how magnificently the Government were going to respond, and how quickly.
The list of Government interventions is literally too long to fit into a short speech, but we all know that they have provided a truly remarkable lifeline to hundreds of thousands of businesses and protected many millions of jobs. Let me mention one intervention in particular: the temporary reduction in VAT to 5% for hospitality and leisure. That one intervention was transformational for the sector’s recovery once lockdown was relaxed on 4 July, allowing vital cash flow to remain in businesses. It also demonstrates just how distorting high taxes are on the economy, as a 10% reduction has had such an impact, reminding us all that lower taxation directly stimulates economic growth.
The Government’s support measures were designed to protect businesses and employment from the initial economic shock of a V-shaped recession, allowing them to adapt in order to survive and then thrive in the new economic climate. The Government cannot do more than this. I recognise that if a business no longer makes commercial sense in the medium term, they cannot pretend that it does. We cannot pay wages indefinitely for jobs that no longer exist in the real world, but that is not the case for many indoor tourism businesses including coaches, which have been referred to in the debate, English language schools and urban businesses. Can this not be recognised?
What we can do when jobs have gone—and what the Government are doing—is to shift economic assistance towards new employment and training, including in tourism. The kickstart project does exactly that. I have visited a business in my constituency that is already looking to take on 50 kickstarters. This will be a fantastic project that will work really well for the domestic tourism businesses.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of many tourism organisations in the wonderful city of Glasgow, which I am so proud to represent. There have been real challenges for many cultural organisations in the city, not least Glasgow Life, the arm’s length organisation of Glasgow City Council that runs our art galleries, museums and sports facilities. Kelvingrove Art Gallery and the Riverside Museum in in my constituency, which have only just reopened, are only able to open on a limited basis and people have to book, so they are really struggling to make the money they need to keep going. Glasgow Life has seen a loss of around £12 million since March. I urge the UK Government to be clear about the Barnett consequentials from the Housing, Communities and Local Government measures that were put in place for England, so that Scotland can see if it can get a share as well.
Smaller organisations such as the Sharmanka Kinetic theatre, the Trongate and Glasgow Police Museum have been able to keep going but their numbers are down, and the effect on the wider tourism economy has had an impact on all museums, whether they are large or small.
In Glasgow, we have benefited hugely for many years from event tourism through the Scottish Event Campus in my constituency. We have the fantastic SSE Hydro, a 14,000-seater venue that has been one of the top 10 venues in the world since opening in 2013, with over 140 events a year. Its closure at the moment has an impact on the surrounding area of Finnieston, which has amazing restaurants and bars, and on the hotels within the wider city as well. I understand from the Scottish Tourism Alliance that hotel capacity in Glasgow is sitting at only about 11% for the next few months. People are clearly put off from coming if they do not know what is going to happen and they cannot plan ahead.
The Scottish Event Campus has been hosting the NHS Louisa Jordan over the past few months and has made a great contribution to that, but we need to recognise that, in doing so and having that instead of the SEC, we are losing out on £136 million a year to the Glasgow economy in the events that the SEC brings in with not just music but conferences, exhibitions and other events bringing in half a million visitors per year to Glasgow.
Lastly, I would like to mention the impact on English language summer schools, such as St Andrew’s College in my constituency. They are seeing a really serious impact, because lots of young people do come and travel to Scotland for these language schools, and they cannot do that now. They bring approximately 10,000 foreign teenagers and employ 500 temporary staff over the summer period. That has gone for them now, and they are very limited in the support they have been able to have. I make a real plea to the UK Government to look more widely at support for the English language teaching sector and to make sure that particular measures are put in place for support through the immigration system as well, so people can come to Glasgow in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Sally-Ann Hart—for, I am afraid, one minute.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to endorse the comments made today about coaches on behalf of the coach companies in Hastings and Rye—Empress Coaches, Rambler Coaches and Nova Bussing. Tourism is very important to Hastings and Rye, but we are now seeing an increase in benefit claims, with over 14,000 individuals on universal credit as from July 2020. I would like to thank the jobcentre staff, who have been heroic in their efforts to support local people.
This Government have given vital support to tourism and tourism-related businesses throughout coronavirus, and so many of my constituents are enormously grateful for that, but ongoing support is desperately needed. For example, Hastings normally has a buoyant English language school culture, with thousands of students coming every year to stay with families. As well as language tuition, trips are organised to our amazing tourist attractions, and local businesses such as the ABC Student Tours will struggle. I fear these businesses will not survive, which will have a long-term impact on our local economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Drew Hendry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or is it now Madam Global Icon—I am not sure—given something said earlier?
What a tour we have had around the nations of the UK and the beautiful and haunting tourism destinations we have, and how appropriate therefore—I say, somewhat modestly—that we now land, at the end of that tour, at the best of all: Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.
The debate has found an awful lot of commonality, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate and giving voice to an industry that desperately needs to have its voice heard at this time. As we have heard from the contributions of Members around this Chamber, it is facing very specific and difficult circumstances. I hope that the Minister will listen with his ears wide open to the difficulties that it faces due to the pandemic and the restrictions that have been placed on it. The hon. Lady talked about the Chancellor saying, “whatever it takes”. Well, now is the time for the Chancellor to stand up and do whatever it takes to support the people, businesses and communities that are going to be affected.
As we have heard from both sides of the Chamber, things cannot go back to normal in the short term. We have heard from hon. Members about the fact that supporting venues are closed and those streams of income are not available to support many parts of the economy. Specific sector support is required at this time, and there is the threat of the loss of specific skills, which we may never recover from. There will be huge economic effects.
The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) talked about the need for responsible tourism. It is a two-way street. We want people to visit our tourism economies and support them, but we also want people to leave them in the beautiful state they found them in, without a repeat of some of the damage and careless behaviour we have seen—I have certainly seen it in my constituency. As he said, it is also important to get clarity on where constituents can get advice from when Ministers say in this Chamber that Government advice is meant for England only, not Wales and Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said, we cannot overstate the harm of the restrictions to the industry or, indeed, the return of public confidence that we will need to see to support the tourism sector. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), talked about the unique effect on the coach sector, which needs bespoke support to supply the infrastructure required to move people across the country so that they can enjoy the tourism on offer.
We heard again and again calls for the Government to either extend the cut to VAT or make it permanent. There is no excuse for not doing so. We are already one of the most highly taxed countries in the whole European Union. [Interruption.] Well, Scotland is a country, and it is highly taxed on VAT. There would be benefits from extending that cut or making it permanent, which I would like to see.
Tourism businesses across our constituencies are tackling the crisis with positivity. They are doing their best, and some are actually doing very well—they are rising to the challenge—but few sectors are directly hit as badly as tourism and hospitality, which effectively face three winters, with only an autumn of a few months in between to sustain them throughout that period. We welcomed the Government borrowing to fund the job retention scheme, but we need it to be extended now more than ever. Businesses will find it more expensive to be open without furlough during those quiet months when they have no bookings than when they were closed during the pandemic restrictions.
There will be a disproportionate effect on low-income families and young people unless some work is done. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have a youth guarantee scheme, but if furlough is not continued and that support will not be there, this Government need to ensure that Scotland has the powers devolved to take action itself, including removing restrictions on borrowing.
The Scottish Government have put in place a tourism taskforce to guide the industry towards a safe, strong and green recovery. If there is an opportunity here, it is to look at how we can change the industry to make it better for the future. The Scottish Government have introduced two new funding packages worth £15 million, including a hotel recovery programme and grants from VisitScotland for self-catering businesses.
The kickstart scheme is not easily available to small employers, and the geography of a rural economy prevents many from clubbing together to take advantage of it. For those who are employed—especially young people—there are further risks, such as being exposed to exploitation and not getting a living wage. The UK Government should take heed of the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) yesterday and urgently provide further support for young people, including a real living wage for those on the scheme.
In conclusion, there is a need to protect the future of this sector and the work within it, especially for young people, and to provide support for those who have been excluded so far and face this winter without the ability to keep themselves going. The Government should look to convert loans to grants or equity, furlough should be extended and they should extend or cut VAT permanently. Failure to support businesses and people in this sector will cause lasting harm to the wider economy. If the furlough scheme is wound up, it will show people that they cannot trust this UK Government to protect them when the chips are down. If the Government are not willing to do those things, we must have the full powers in Scotland to do them ourselves—or, even better, we must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of Scotland’s people.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to sum up what has been, as such debates often are, a very informative debate. Hon. Members have spoken with great passion about the issues facing their constituencies. I particularly thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who secured the debate and spoke passionately about the need to support our coastal communities.
The UK tourism industry is the sixth-largest in the world. It employs 3.3 million people and generates revenue of £155.4 billion. In this debate, we have toured the nation, and this summer, I myself visited many different parts of our tourism sector to see the impact of covid, the effect of Government support and what additional measures the sector needed. We cannot truly understand the impact unless we have seen it at first hand.
I visited the zoos in London and Knowsley, close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who made excellent points about reduced capacity first highlighted on my visit to Merseyside, and the zoo in Newquay. I see the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in his place, but unfortunately we did not reach him. I also visited the Eden Project in his constituency and went paddle boarding on the Fowey.
I visited aquariums in Brighton and Plymouth, Hever castle and Powderham castle, the site of the proposed Eden Project North, in Morecambe, and the winter gardens there. I also went to the Manchester museums and galleries and Crownhill fort in Plymouth. I visited Brighton pier and the i360, and the Van Gogh immersive experience in York, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who made an excellent speech about need to return confidence to our sector. Although I did not visit Warwick castle this summer, I did visit when I was a child, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) will invite me back again.
I also stayed at the Seven Bays caravan park in north Cornwall, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) stayed at Unison’s Croyde Bay caravan park. I met hotel, restaurant and bar owners around the country, sometimes in person and sometimes on Zoom. Each had a unique perspective, but all had the same central problem: the huge financial black hole caused by the three-and-a-half-month closure of their organisations and the huge drop in visitor numbers. They all spoke about their fears about the coming winter and their future prospects.
Tourism was always going to be hit hard by a pandemic that meant people had to stay at home. When some of the restrictions were lifted in June, when the sun shone and the newspapers led with photos of bursting beaches and packed-out towns, it seemed to many that summer and the tourism industry underpinning it might just have been spared, but tourism reopened later than any other industry. Despite what the front pages might have shown, it has been, and still is, operating at severely restricted capacity. The industry might have had an okay August, but it lost Easter, May half term, two bank holidays and the whole of June. Those four months are crucial to the industry. Some 92% of tourism businesses said that their revenue had decreased by more than 50% as a result—a point made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), East Devon (Simon Jupp) and Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). This means that the industry is effectively operating through three consecutive winters: the winters of 2019 and 2020 and the winter of coronavirus.
Visit Britain has forecast that tourism revenue in 2020 will decrease by £68.8 billion, which equates to a loss of more than 1 million full-time jobs. Including the 300,000 outlying jobs also at risk, the figure is close to 1.35 million—a third of all tourism jobs. That is 1.35 million full-time jobs that could be lost in the sector, 1.35 million people—people with bills, people with families to feed and people who need and want to work, to provide and contribute.
The Chancellor described his choice to end furlough next month as one of the most difficult decisions. I know the Minister, who is always very kind when we talk, is listening diligently, and I ask that he listen to the tourism industry and reconsider the decision to end furlough. The loss of more than 1 million jobs would be devastating, not just for individual families and households, but for the tourism industry and the health of our whole economy.
With much of the tourism industry yet to reopen and the main summer tourismt season ending in September, ending the furlough scheme means two things: mass unemployment and mass business closures. It is easy to think about the tourism industry from the perspective of the consumer—we can all imagine ourselves sacrificing our holiday to save lives during a deadly pandemic—but we must remember that tourism means jobs. We know that the UK tourism industry is one of our biggest employers and that it is worth 9% of GDP, but many people do not realise that it is also the largest non-governmental mechanism for transferring wealth from urban to rural and seaside communities—a point made by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). These rural and seaside economies are important. Coastal tourism, pre covid, was valued at £13.7 billion in England and £17.1 billion in GB. Tourism employs 20% of the workforce in most coastal towns and more than 50% in many, including Newquay, St Ives, Skegness, Mablethorpe, Cleveleys, Whitby and Minehead. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made the excellent point that the food industry is inextricably linked to the prospects of tourism. Jobs in coastal towns have been disproportionately affected during the pandemic, and covid has cost seaside towns across the country £10.3 billion in lost revenue, according to the National Coastal Tourism Academy. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) correctly made the point that destination management organisations need support to help these economies, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke about promoting domestic tourism as a whole.
That is not say that things were rosy for these coastal regions before covid. It is no secret that many seaside towns in Britain have been struggling for many years. Poverty, inequality and deprivation presided over by successive austerity-driven Conservative Governments have meant that many coastal towns have been in social and economic crisis since long before the pandemic swept ashore. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), when he was in Cornwall, said:
“We need a targeted extension of the furlough scheme for the hardest-hit sectors and proper support in place to help those who are unemployed back into work. People are worried about their job prospects. The Labour Party is focused on fighting for every job and every part of the country.”
He is of course absolutely right. He said that in a coastal town because he and we all know that this must include revitalising our coastal communities, reviving jobs and industries, and diversifying these economies. The current crisis has made it patently clear that this is more urgent than ever.
We cannot discuss tourism in earnest without acknowledging the hospitality industry—one of the key forces powering the UK’s tourism economy. Hotels, pubs and restaurants rely on the tourist trade, and vice versa. Equally, the coach industry that delivers the customers to the hospitality industry has been absolutely decimated by this crisis—a point well made by the hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). While the Chancellor seemingly saved the day with the eat out to help out scheme—and it cannot be denied that the nation ate out with gusto—the fact remains that only half of restaurants are open and two thirds of businesses are still not making a profit. The number of staff furloughed still remains similar to July, with 51% of hospitality staff still not back at work in August. Taken with the fact that over 80% of employees in the tourism industry have been furloughed, compared with 32% of the total UK workforce, it is clear that ending support for everyone at the end of October will be disastrous. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that is destined to fail. We need a targeted extension to the furlough scheme to protect our most vulnerable workers and industries through this critical time. I am pleased that the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made these points.
As a party, we are also calling for a £1.7 billion hospitality and high streets fightback fund to help tourism and hospitality businesses that are unable to fully trade. We are calling for this because Labour recognises that the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach to jobs risks tourism falling through the cracks. As a minimum, the Government, rather than clawing back the underspend in grants, need to redeploy it to other industries, particularly those struggling in the visitor economy. While the epidemic has dealt a devastating blow to our tourism industry, with a swift and urgent Government intervention there is an opportunity not just for survival but for recovery and growth—an opportunity to limit the long-term impact of covid-19 not just on people’s livelihoods and businesses but on our towns and our collective heritage and history.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Minister, Nigel Huddleston.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Global icon, global goddess —whatever we need to call you when you are in the Chair, I would never question you.
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to today’s important debate as the truncated summer season comes to a close. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate. She has been a great champion for tourism ever since she was elected last year.
I thank all Members from across the House for the constructive and positive tone of this debate, which shows that we can unite. It is a clear demonstration of how important the tourism industry is right across the UK. While tourism is indeed a devolved matter, as mentioned by many Members, I do have good relationships and frequent conversations with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and we are very much singing from the same hymn sheet. Due to time constraints, I might not be able to respond to every question that has been asked, but I will endeavour to have one-on-one conversations outside the Chamber on any issues that I am unable to address today. I am also aware that some hon. Members were unable to speak today. If hon. Members wish to intervene, I will prioritise those who have not yet participated—
Steve Double
It sounded like an invitation. May I first place on the record my thanks to the Minister for all his incredible hard work over the past few months to support the tourism and hospitality sector? He would not want to be outdone by the shadow Minister, so will he come to Cornwall soon? We have heard a lot today about the support that the Government have given the sector, but I also wish to place on the record my thanks to the many businesses in the sector that have played their part in helping us get through the lockdown, particularly those that provided emergency accommodation for homeless people and for key workers who could not go back to their family homes. Will he join me in thanking them?
Nigel Huddleston
Absolutely, and I hope to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency in the next week or so. He makes an important point, because those businesses, despite all the struggles the sector has faced, have stepped up to the plate in so many ways, whether food distribution, helping local communities or providing accommodation for the homeless. I applaud the sector for all that it has done in these incredibly difficult times.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
There is a particular town in my constituency that has experienced a bit of a tourism boom this year, having gained international fame earlier this summer, so may I extend to the Minister my warmest invitation to visit Barnard Castle and see the best that the north-east has to offer?
Nigel Huddleston
I would be delighted to do so when I visit the north-east in the near future.
At the start of the year, the prospects for the tourism industry, and for all its important sectors—inbound, domestic and outbound—looked very positive. As I took on this role, I was looking forward to yet another bumper year. Some 41 million visitors travelled to the UK from overseas in 2019, and it looked like we were going to have 100 million domestic visitors for the first time. The outbound sector, which is a really important part of this economy, was also doing well. But covid had other plans.
The virus is undoubtedly the biggest crisis that the global tourism industry has faced since the second world war. It has had a far greater impact than foot and mouth, 9/11, the financial crisis and the 7/7 bombings. But the Government did act quickly. Many hon. Members have mentioned the interventionist measures that we have constructed, such as the jobs retention scheme, business rates relief, grants, a variety of loan schemes and many other measures, including support for destination marketing organisations, which are a really important sector that many hon. Member have mentioned today.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
May I place on the record my thanks for everything that you have done for me and for my constituents? I know that you have already visited, but you are very welcome to come back for a Cromer crab sandwich in the near future. I did not get to speak today, but I know that you will take on board many of the initiatives that have been put forward. Can you also spare a thought for the impact that last night’s announcements will have on the tourism industry, particularly the effect of the six-person limit on larger holiday lets? Can I finally say—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had quite a good intervention. I really have to say to him that it is very important that Members remember to speak through the Chair, so he should not refer to the Minister as “you.”
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I am happy to continue the dialogue outside the Chamber, where he can call me anything he likes.
The Government have put in place a number of measures and will of course continue to monitor the situation. In July, as lockdown restrictions began to ease, we wanted to ensure that tourism businesses were in the best position as they began to open. We therefore implemented a whole range of additional measures, such as the VAT cut for tourism, eat out to help out, the Enjoy Summer Safely campaign, the work that VisitBritain has done and its “We’re good to go” standard, and of course changing regulations to allow bars, pubs and restaurants to extend on to the pavement and into the street, given the capacity challenges.
The additional arts and culture support package, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) mentioned, is vital to sustain the economy through the support it has given to heritage venues, theatres, museums, galleries and other draws for our tourism economy. Taken together, these measures have helped the tourism sector to reopen and start on the road to recovery, but there is much more to do.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
To fuel that road to recovery, will the Minister give favourable consideration to Visit East of England’s bid for Suffolk and Norfolk to be a tourism zone?
Nigel Huddleston
Tourism action zones were proposed in the sector deal of a couple of years ago. As we approach the spending review, we are discussing with the Treasury how to execute those, and I will be having further conversations on the subject.
We have seen some positive signs in the past few months. The hotel and accommodation occupancy rates in coastal and rural areas have been relatively high—in some cases, back to 2019 levels by the end of August. Self-catering cottages, camp sites, caravan and holiday parks have generally reported a strong summer and many outdoor attractions have also seen high levels of footfall, but many outdoor and especially indoor attractions remain subject to capacity constraints. Many city areas continue to struggle, in part because they are especially reliant on and exposed to inbound tourism and business travel and, of course, we still have quarantine measures in place.
We will continue to monitor all this closely and take further action where necessary, but it is not true to say that the measures already in place will not help over the next few months. Businesses will continue to benefit from the VAT cut until 12 January; the furlough scheme continues until the end of October; Visit England and Visit Britain will soon launch a new domestic campaign; and we are encouraging local planning authorities to relax planning conditions on caravan parks, camp sites and holiday parks to extend the season.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister has outlined in great detail the large amount of help offered to traders and businesses in seaside resorts such as Cleethorpes, but what we are interested in is extending that support. I would appreciate it if he developed that part of his speech. Also, bus and coach operators have been mentioned. Will he pay particular attention to the bonded coach holidays scheme, which is a real burden on many small operators?
Nigel Huddleston
Several hon. Members mentioned those points. On the coach sector in particular, I assure the House that we recognise its important role in the tourism sector, and we are engaging with the Department for Transport on the challenges it faces.
We are aware that several sectors are yet to reopen. Several hon. Members mentioned the important events, exhibitions and business conference sector, and we are continuing to work with the sector. I had the pleasure of attending a successful event last week in one of the pilot schemes for the business events sector.
There is plenty of work to do, and many Members have offered good ideas. I will happily continue the dialogue with many of them. Perhaps the most prevalent request today was that the VAT reduction be extended—that was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Member for North Devon, for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for East Devon (Simon Jupp), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and many others. Perhaps it would have been easier to mention those who did not make that request, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the message is well understood by me and hopefully the Chancellor.
As for the extension of the furlough scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) acknowledged, our right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that that scheme cannot continue indefinitely. However, that does not mean that further intervention measures will not be taken where necessary.
I hope the measures set out by me and others today give the House confidence that the Government take the impact of covid on the tourism sector very seriously. We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders. I think today’s debate shows that the industry’s voice has been heard by the Government and Members of Parliament.
Selaine Saxby
I thank the Minister for those encouraging words. I look forward to working with him and his team, who have been fantastic throughout the pandemic, to nurture the green shoots of recovery in our vital tourism sector.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this debate to take place, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who contributed. I also thank for their support those hon. Members who were unable to come into the Chamber this afternoon. On behalf of the tourism sector, I thank all the participants. As the one-woman tourist board for North Devon, I look forward to welcoming everyone to the beaches as the winter progresses.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the tourism industry after the covid-19 lockdown.
Manchester Piccadilly to Rose Hill Marple Trains
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) did in the previous debate, of moving a motion in my name that is of great importance to my constituency. It concerns the services on the Manchester Piccadilly to Rose Hill via Hyde line. This is of considerable interest to my constituents and is urgent given that, from Monday of next week, there are plans for three months of complete service suspension on that route. I can also see a number of my constituency neighbours in the Chamber this afternoon, which indicates wider concern about this proposal—in addition to the concerns of my constituents in Marple, Romiley and Woodley.
Jonathan Reynolds
First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this Adjournment debate today, which is of huge importance to my constituency, his constituency and all the neighbouring ones? I have always believed that politics is about campaigning very hard for your side in an election, but sometimes you do not always win—in our experience, we did not win several elections in a row—but after that you work with people around your area to try to deliver what is best for your constituents. That is why we are all so united on this issue. As he knows and as the Minister, who has kindly already given us some time, knows, the case for Hyde is very simple. Hyde Central is the main train station for Hyde, with more than 100,000 journeys a year. To go from that to no service at all up to Christmas is just too significant a change. While we all recognise that covid has had a huge impact on a whole range of areas in British public life, to go to no service at all is simply too much.
Mr Wragg
I am in complete agreement with my constituency neighbour, which will come as no surprise to anyone at all. May I, at this juncture, mention my other constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who contributed to business questions earlier today, but cannot be with us this afternoon? I just wish to place on record my thanks to them and say that it has been a pleasure, as always, to work closely with them.
We are all acutely aware of the variety of impacts the covid-19 pandemic and associated restrictions are having on everyday life. We understand why things we have previously taken for granted are no longer possible or must be done with appropriate adaptations and caution. However, while our railways have provided a vital service to key workers—indeed, those who work on them are key workers themselves—and now an increasing number of the general public, they, too, have been impacted by this pandemic. Northern, which operates services on the Manchester to Rose Hill line, has brought forward this proposal: to temporarily suspend services in their entirety for three months. It justified it on the following grounds, informing me that the driver training programme was suspended for nearly six months, a proportion of its workforce are classified as vulnerable and have been shielding, and a number of drivers have left the company or have retired and replacements have yet to be trained. All of those points are understandable. A train driver cannot work from home. However, I cannot help but think that these issues should have become apparent much earlier and could have been better planned for. Northern’s reputation has suffered greatly from the timetable debacle and a series of strikes in recent years. Many of my constituents have said in frustration to me that they wonder whether Northern sees running a railway as an inconvenience. My constituents deserve better.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I know that he and my good and hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) are long-standing campaigners about the issues on this line. Although the line does not impact my constituency, it is very near to it, and I have been discussing it with the shadow rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, ever since the Government took over the Northern franchise in March 2020, things have actually got much worse than they were before, when the franchise was in private hands? I know that Northern is one of the most complained about train operators in the UK.
Mr Wragg
There is no doubt whatever that Northern’s reputation has been generally lamentable for some years. However, I gently caution the hon. Gentleman, my neighbour from Stockport, because March 2020 was also when the pandemic began, and that has brought a degree of pressure. Nevertheless, I take entirely the thrust of his argument. Like his constituents, my constituents deserve better; they deserve an efficient, regular and reliable rail service. That is why we are here today.
It is completely unacceptable to make an announcement over the summer without consultation with passenger groups, local transport bodies or elected representatives. That is compounded by the apparent lack of notice given to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), in particular given his Department’s role as operator of last resort. At this juncture, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has made himself completely available to all colleagues in the House, to meet us virtually, to apply pressure to Northern and to ask the questions that need to be asked. I pay tribute to him for his work.
Jonathan Reynolds
I, too, thank the Minister. The most that any Minister can do is to make themselves available to listen to individual MPs about constituency issues. That is all we can ever ask, and the Minister has certainly done that, so I add my thanks.
It is also relevant to add something that our constituents say to us, as the Minister knows. Even in pre-pandemic times, Northern was a service with a substantial degree of public subsidy—quite rightly, because it could not be run on commercial grounds—and people therefore expect, in a sense, a greater level of respect because of that relationship. They are a partner, a contributor, through the taxes that they pay. I am a supporter of my local rail service, and I want it to have public support, but that makes it more difficult—there is no doubt about that.
Mr Wragg
Absolutely, that makes it more difficult. That is why Northern needs to know that the operation has changed. It needs to know that it has to improve, that it is perhaps doubly accountable, because of the involvement of the Department for Transport.
To remove all services on the Rose Hill line will cause serious problems for many of my constituents, including schoolchildren, in particular those who attend Marple Hall School, and commuters generally. It flies in the face of the Government’s laudable desire to ensure that people can go about their lives using covid-secure public transport. The jargon of the rail industry—“securing timetables” or “keeping customers on the move”—is surely not achieved by wholesale suspension of services. It is high time that the line from Piccadilly to Rose Hill via Hyde was properly regarded by all as a valuable rail route, with enormous potential for the future. That ambition is already recognised by the public, given the increased passenger numbers over recent years. We cannot allow the line to be disregarded for administrative ease.
The excellent work done by local friends groups to champion and enhance stations must be recognised. I know how much work it was for the friends groups from my own area, including Rose Hill station, Marple and Romiley, to name but a few, and how much work they have done to oppose the proposals. Such groups are more than just responsible for the hanging baskets and the planters, even though—if I may plug this—Rose Hill station won the award for the best-kept station in Cheshire in 2019. Notwithstanding that, they are an integral part of understanding the needs and concerns of passengers. We must do all we can to engage with them properly and to value them.
I do not want to waste any more time this afternoon lamenting Northern’s past record. Now is the time for change and action. I need to hear the following from my hon. Friend the Minister—I hope he will forgive my assertiveness—who has been very helpful throughout the summer in seeking a solution: what will he do to stop a complete removal of service from the Rose Hill line? What will he do to ensure that Northern prioritises the line for driver training and for new trains? What will he do to avoid my constituents of Rose Hill, and some at Romiley and at Woodley, being without services on that line for three months as of Monday next week?
Rose Hill station has faced many challenges over the years. Perhaps its greatest was seeing off the machinations of Dr Beeching. We must not allow covid-19 to become the Beeching of our age for the railways. On the contrary, we must do all we can to support them and to ensure a steady and safe return of passengers to the network.
I am grateful to everyone who has worked to get the best possible outcome today, including the thousands of local petitioners. I know that, like me, they will listen keenly to the reply from my hon. Friend the Minister, from whom it is now time to hear.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for securing this important and timely debate. Indeed, I think it was through him that I was first informed about the issues addressed in his speech. It is fair to say that ever since, he has been fairly persistent in his contact with me and, indeed, Northern trains and others to build a coalition to try to get services reinstated on the line.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I hope momentarily to draw the Minister away from Cheshire and the north-west. Last October, my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), had an Adjournment debate on the subject of the Portishead line, which I also supported. We are very keen to see that line expedited. I wrote to the Minister further in August and hope he can look into that so that I can share in the good wishes of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg).
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will honourably take up the hon. Lady’s offer, because what is going on in Portishead is a very positive piece of news. I look forward to having conversations with her to move that forward.
We are, though, talking about Rose Hill and Hazel Grove. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove has been building a coalition to reinstate his and his constituents’ much-loved services. He has done a very good job. We know him in this place as a hard-working chairman of a Select Committee and a great parliamentarian, but now we also know that he is a hard-working, caring and great constituency MP. He has demonstrated how he is willing to work with others from other political parties to get a result for his, and their, constituents. I put on the record the work that I know has been done on these issues by the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I was pleased that we all had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the managing director of Northern trains last Friday.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove knows, I was concerned to hear that the Rose Hill service had been temporarily removed until December 2020. Let me be clear that Northern took this unwelcome decision itself, to maintain operational performance by increasing services overall while it managed its recovery from covid-19. Alas, prior to the pandemic Northern already had an intensive driver-training-programme backlog, but extra delays caused by the epidemic, combined with staff self-shielding at home, have meant that Northern has had to take steps to prioritise its available-and-competent driver resource to where it is most needed.
Northern made the decision to temporarily suspend services from Rose Hill because it believed that, given the availability of other train routes, stations and public transport options for Rose Hill passengers, that would have less impact for local customers than for those of other stations and routes. Northern says that it did not take the decision lightly. It anticipated and hoped that the provision of a replacement bus service and the availability of train-travel options from other stations close by would enable Rose Hill passengers to return to work and school with minimal disruption. None the less, Northern recognises that the decision, although made with the best interests of its customers network-wide in mind, caused significant concern and frustration among passengers, local-friends groups and Members of Parliament.
As we have been slowly exiting from lockdown and seeing Britons get back to work, the railway has rightly been increasing services to meet passenger demand and expectations. This Monday, on 14 September, there will be an additional service uplift for many passengers across Northern’s network. Train operators overall have been asked to restore a timetable that maximises the opportunities for passenger travel while maintaining the excellent performance levels we see at this point in time. I assure all Members that the rapid return of a good, regular, resilient timetable on the line is our priority.
Having listened to Members’ concerns, I can inform them that Northern has reviewed its timetable and outlined improvements. But I have challenged the operator to do more—immediately—for the passengers in the Rose Hill area. Moving resource around has enabled Northern to provide some glimmer of light for passengers on this line. Northern has prioritised the running of services for its customers that will be both resilient and reliable, rather than ramping up its services quickly. That is something I insist on: we need a reliable railway if we are to have a railway at all. It is focusing its efforts on the morning and evening peak times, using customer feedback to get essential workers to where they need to be. Literally moments before this debate commenced, Northern informed me that it intends to introduce two trains in the morning, Monday to Friday, for Rose Hill Marple from 14 September. They will arrive at 8.11 am and 8.36 am respectively to ensure that Northern can meet key school demand. There will also be an afternoon service to meet school demand, arriving at Rose Hill Marple at 3.14 pm and getting to Manchester Piccadilly half an hour later.
I would like to think that the coalition my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove brought together—the voices of his residents and the voices of Members of Parliament, hopefully amplified by me as the Minister—has been listened to by Northern in the conversations we have all had with the operator.
Jonathan Reynolds
Let me say on behalf of my constituents in Hyde that that is extremely welcome news. A service that focuses on peak demand will go a huge way to meeting the need that is there, putting concerns at rest and keeping people on the railway, which is what we all want. I thank the Minister on behalf of my constituents.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He has played a great part in this, as have other hon. Members who have contributed today.
The impact of coronavirus means that the safety of passengers and staff must be paramount. That means the focus right now is on reliability and increased capacity to enable safer travel, with enough space for social distancing where possible. Northern runs a highly complex network and serves an enormous section of the United Kingdom. In fact, about one in five of all United Kingdom stations is a Northern station. It shares the network with nine other train operators, so the decisions it takes, such as moving trains around to run different services, affect the journeys people make all around the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove knows from our last meeting on Friday, Northern apologised for the removal of this service and committed to an internal review to learn the lessons from this issue. Northern is also reviewing options again to see how it can support affected communities until we get to the point where a full reliable service is restored.
More generally, the public sector operator will continue to work with Network Rail to make sure the railway delivers as one, with a single-minded focus on the interests of the passenger. As a part of that, the newly created cross-industry Manchester recovery task- force, co-ordinated by Network Rail, will deliver on recommendations on how best to boost capacity and performance in the short, medium and longer term.
Northern has already begun to deliver many improvements for customers, including the recruitment of more staff, a full train cleaning programme and improvements to many stations. However, there remains much more to do to provide the modern, reliable service that its passengers deserve. Northern really does hope shortly to update everybody further on its plans to transform the service, but until then it will continue to focus on getting the basics right: restoring reliability, increasing capacity and rebuilding trust in the organisation by providing services that all passengers can truly rely on.
Mr Wragg
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that announcement and for the work he has done to secure it. He mentions the short, medium and longer term. Without wishing to look a gift horse in the mouth, I wonder if he could elaborate further. Will Northern prioritise this route for the restoration of services before the deadline in December? Might there perhaps be the potential for better news in the weeks ahead?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As my hon. Friend will recognise from my announcement, which was given to me only moments before I entered the Chamber, Northern is working particularly hard to ensure the restoration of service. I will continue to put pressure on it to continue to do that in the lead-up to 14 December, when the next timetable change comes in. I think we have already proved that, working together, we can get some change on our railways, and if we continue to do so, I am sure that will continue to be the case.
I recognise that the decision by Northern has caused serious concern among passengers and the constituents of my hon. Friend and others. The coronavirus outbreak has affected the way we work and go about our daily lives, and that is no different in the rail industry. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. I should say that, in doing my research for the debate, I came across some interesting claims by another local political party. Interestingly, considering its supposed level of concern, it is not represented here today. It claims to be running a campaign to get the service reinstated, so, thinking I might have missed something, I asked my officials to check whether any representations had been made to my Department by the local councillor concerned about reinstating the services. Unsurprisingly, the answer was no, not a thing. Not a sausage. As per usual, the Lib Dems are very good at moaning about something and happy to make a gripe fester, but in this case they were not interested enough to make representations to the Department that might have been able to help. Perhaps the collection of data in a campaign was more important to them than getting a result.
Fortunately, the people of Hazel Grove have my hon. Friend representing them, and from the very moment he heard about this issue, he made contact with me. Indeed, he did so before I found out about it formally. He has been forcefully and proactively asking the right questions of the right people to get the right results for the people he represents. He is a Member of a party in a Government who are going to level up the economic opportunities across our great nation. The Government understand the importance that communities across the country place on regular train services and the social and economic benefits that these can unlock for local economies.
I hope that the measures being introduced by Northern that I have announced will go some way to assure passengers relying on the Rose Hill Marple services as we come out of the coronavirus outbreak that we are looking to improve that service greatly. Hopefully they will also be pleased with the massive multi-million pound investment in new rolling stock, which I very much hope will be serving this route in the coming months. I hope that that goes some way towards answering my hon. Friend’s question. There is more work to do, but a lot of work has been done by the hon. Members present in the House today to restore some services on the line, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his help in doing that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020
Draft Functions of the Investigatory Powers Commisioner (Oversight of the Data Access Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and of Functions Exercisable Under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight of the Data Access Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and of functions exercisable under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019) Regulations 2020.
James Brokenshire
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to be given the opportunity to debate the regulations today. Both sets of regulations are made under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That legislation brought together powers available to our public authorities to obtain communications and data about communications. Such powers are vital to their efforts to tackle crime and protect our citizens. The legislation also creates extensive and world-leading safeguards, including a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner who provides independent oversight and authorisation of the use of such powers. As the operational requirements of our public authorities continue to evolve, it is vital that the use of investigatory powers can adapt in response, within the strict parameters that Parliament agreed during the passage of the Act. The regulations we are debating today collectively represent this adaption in action.
The first set of regulations is the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020. They amend schedule 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act to add five public authorities to the list of bodies that can legally obtain communications data. The regulations also make minor amendments to bring certain role titles and the names of organisations into line with current terminology. They do not lower the rank or seniority of any authorising officers.
For clarification, communications data includes the who, the when, the where and the how of a communication, but, most importantly, not the content: what was said or what was written. It includes the method and way in which one person or thing communicates with another person or thing. Access to the data is a crucial investigative tool for a variety of law enforcement bodies and has a range of operational uses. The five public authorities that we propose adding to schedule 4 by the regulations have each demonstrated through extensive consultation with the Home Office and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office that access to the data is now necessary, and is proportionate to their operational requirements and statutory duties. The relevant authorities are the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which requires the powers to investigate threats to the most sensitive nuclear sites in the UK; the Environment Agency, to tackle serious and organised waste crime; the Insolvency Service, to investigate and prosecute criminal wrongdoing connected to personal and company insolvencies; the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping, to protect the Government from technical espionage attacks by hostile state actors; and the Pensions Regulator, to investigate serious crimes associated with workplace pension schemes, including fraud and money laundering.
We have not published the full business cases of each authority owing to potential operational sensitivities, but I will of course answer as many questions as hon. Members wish to ask. The authorities will be subject to the stringent safeguards that already govern the use of communications data, which include the independent authorisation of most requests by the Office for Communications Data Authorisations, a serious crime threshold requiring certain types of communications data, and inspections conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office.
The second set of regulations we are debating today is the draft Functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight of the Data Access Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and of functions exercisable under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019) Regulations 2020. This agreement will allow UK public authorities with the appropriate legal authorisation to obtain data directly from US-based telecommunications operators, again for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious crime.
The agreement was signed by the Home Secretary in October 2019, and was laid before Parliament that month under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process. It was also subject to a six-month review period in the US Congress, which completed this July. Following the completion of those processes, we are now in the final phases of entering the agreement into force, which we expect to happen later this year via an exchange of diplomatic notes.
It is a requirement of the agreement to ensure that there is an appropriate level of audit and oversight of its use. Given that the agreement has been designated under the 2016 Act, and that almost all the authorities using the agreement fall under the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s remit for aspects of their work already, it was decided that the commissioner and his team should oversee the UK’s use of the agreement.
The commissioner will, in accordance with the agreement, keep under review the compliance of UK public authorities with its terms. That will include the ex post facto review by a judicial commissioner of communications data authorisations and certain modifications to targeted interception warrants that would not otherwise be specifically subject to a commissioner’s review. That ex post facto review must be conducted as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than three months from when the authorisation is given effect.
In addition to the Investigatory Powers Act, the agreement has been designated under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019. The draft regulations therefore amend the 2016 Act to provide a statutory basis for the commissioner to perform his role in relation to the agreement and to oversee the use of overseas production orders under the agreement. The commissioner is supportive of that, and his team has recruited additional resource in preparation for the agreement’s coming into force.
Although, as I have described, the regulations require the commissioner to perform his review of public authorities’ compliance in accordance with the agreements, the commissioner, as an independent office holder, will continue to discharge the functions of inspection, investigation and audit as he sees fit. The Government remain absolutely committed to the independence of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
In summary, the draft regulations relate to provisions already set out in the 2016 Act and will allow the use of the investigatory powers by our public authorities to changes in their operational requirements as they respond to an evolving threat picture, while ensuring that the appropriate safeguards can continue to apply.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to see the Minister who, along with the hon. Member for Corby, is certainly earning his keep, given the amount of Home Office business that we have had this week. As always, I thank the Minister for his courtesy and that of his officials in providing us with information prior to this sitting so that the Opposition, as I have said before, can work in partnership with Government, UK law enforcement, key operational partners and—this is pertinent to this morning’s business—public bodies to improve our country’s resilience to threats, prevent criminality and ultimately uphold international security.
Although largely technical in scope, the draft regulations have implications for that vital task, and we thus approach them in a collaborative and constructive spirit. Having carefully considered them, we will not oppose them; however, I am sure that the Minister will understand that we wish to seek some clarity, assurances, safeguards and oversights of the changes, particularly when they relate to such sensitive matters and powers.
The first instrument to be considered amends part 1 of schedule 4 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. As the Minister said, it adds five new public authorities to the list of bodies with power to obtain communications data from UK telecoms operators. As hon. Members know, the 2016 Act contained important and welcome safeguards to ensure that widening access to investigatory powers and sensitive data would be used only where necessary, proportionate, authorised and accountable. That is backed up by statutory codes of practice.
That was done for good reason. It is important to make sure that any broadening of access to data powers is always for essential reasons, is well scrutinised by parliamentary and other sources of independent oversight and is applied only to public authorities that show a clear and demonstrable need for them. As such, we acknowledge the reasonable operational case for adding the five public authorities listed, as shown in the instrument’s purpose and effect memorandum, but can the Minister clarify why that is taking place now and why it was not introduced sooner? Has a particular development made widening such access imperative?
Furthermore, we welcome that all the additions and amendments were subject to a 12-week consultation period with the relevant public authorities and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It is right that the consultation considered factors such as the gravity of offences dealt with by the public authority, their statutory remit and the frequency of requests for data the body is estimated to make.
The commissioner’s independent oversight was also welcome. Can the Minister clarify the exact role and oversight function of the commissioner during the consultation process and perhaps commit to publishing information on that point? For example, were they fully in accord with widening access to those bodies, or did they have any specific reservations or contentions? Were those acted on and adequately addressed before the public authorities were listed?
Given the widened access, can the Minister also outline whether the full list of public authorities with such powers will be regularly reviewed? As with all investigatory powers, it is important that the operational case for bodies having powers to access information is kept under close and strict review. Those are important issues.
On the second instrument to be considered, article 12(1) of the 2019 agreement between the United Kingdom and United States of America on access to electronic data for the purpose of countering serious crime requires a review to be fulfilled to ensure each side’s general compliance. As with the previous instrument, we welcome the independent oversight and role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. They often undertake tasks in relation to similar investigatory powers, therefore the move seems sensible and practical. In the same vein, the instrument provides the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office with a welcome sense of clarity and purpose as it undertakes the new role. It is welcome that, following consultation with the IPCO and its operational partners, it is content that it is adequately equipped to carry out the new function.
I want to press the Minister on a couple of issues relating to the wider UK-US agreement, notably whether the Government will continue, as I believe they have stated elsewhere, including in the agreement, to keep seeking key assurances from the United States that the death penalty will not be sought or implemented in cases where data and information are acquired from UK telecommunication sources. Similarly, it is worth restating that similar safeguards around data and the protection of journalists and their vital work in that context are critical. The Opposition vehemently oppose the death penalty and we respect the protection of journalistic sources and material. I hope that the Minister can reassure us and renew that commitment to promoting safeguards on those important matters.
In conclusion, we will not oppose the two instruments. Although they are technical in carrying out specific functions and scope, they have important ramifications for preventing criminality and upholding our national security, which are key priorities for hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the aforementioned constructive spirit, we look forward to working with the Government, law enforcement and relevant public agencies to get the approach right. We will continue, where appropriate, to seek reassurances that the full and proper safeguards are being upheld in spirit and practice for all matters relating to these investigatory powers.
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Member for St Helens North for his support for the measures. As I have already discussed, he will be aware of the position on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It requires the commissioner and the judicial commissioners to conduct audits, investigations and inspections.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee, that absolutely remains in place, notwithstanding the addition of the different bodies that we are proposing in the regulations. Clearly, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 rightly put in place that oversight, governance and reassurance to recognise the power of those particular capabilities and the need to ensure that they are used properly and appropriately. That concept of proportionality and necessity is therefore imbued in the 2016 Act. We keep the bodies under review, hence the addition of the order and the businesses cases that each of them have provided for its utility and how it will add to their means of providing public safety and combating crime.
I underline to the hon. Gentleman that this is effectively part of a regular review. I am sure that he will note that the fire service, for example, has been removed from the list. As well as seeing what additional bodies should be considered, equally, when the power no longer seems to be justified or appropriate for a listed body, we will remove that body through the negative resolution process when there is reason to do so. Through our consultation and engagement with the commissioner, we assessed the need for those additional bodies to be added to the list. No doubt, the commissioner’s office will look at the cases that are made and report on the use of the powers, therefore ensuring in the normal way that their utilisation is appropriate.
On the second order, the hon. Gentleman rightly asked for assurances about the death penalty. He will recognise that the Government take that incredibly seriously. I point him towards the separate signed letter that was provided in support of the agreement, and which specifically addresses his point. The assurances in that separate and publicly available recorded document underline our upholding of those very clear rules under mutual legal assistance, but they also apply in this context.
In the light of those responses and words of assurance, I trust that the Committee will be minded to support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020.
DRAFT FUNCTIONS OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS COMMISSIONER (OVERSIGHT OF THE DATA ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF FUNCTIONS EXERCISABLE UNDER THE CRIME (OVERSEAS PRODUCTION ORDERS) ACT 2019) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight of the Data Access Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and of functions exercisable under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019) Regulations 2020.—(James Brokenshire.)
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 10th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 September 2020 - (10 Sep 2020)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: Steve McCabe, † Sir Charles Walker
† Bonnar, Steven (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
† Butler, Rob (Aylesbury) (Con)
† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)
† Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab)
† Fletcher, Katherine (South Ribble) (Con)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
† Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† O'Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
† Owatemi, Taiwo (Coventry North West) (Lab)
† Peacock, Stephanie (Barnsley East) (Lab)
† Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
† Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
† Young, Jacob (Redcar) (Con)
Rob Page, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Thursday 10 September 2020
(Afternoon)
[Sir Charles Walker in the Chair]
Fisheries Bill [Lords]
The Chair
Order. There is far too much jollity in the Room. We will put an end to that.
I have a few announcements. Colleagues may remove their jackets, if they so wish. I am looking at a colleague who obviously knew I was going to say that—that is an admonishment by the way, but a very gentle one. Before we begin, I will make a few preliminary points. Most of you want to get back to your constituencies this evening. I do not know how we will proceed, but I am sure there will be a clip to it. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance; I shall intervene, if necessary, to remind everyone. I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, and Hansard colleagues would be grateful if hon. Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 19
Further provision about licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The clause sets out the meaning of a “sea fishing licence”.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Very briefly—not to interrupt your pace.
I am sure the Minister has had time to reflect on the question that I asked in this morning’s session about the difference between a hard and soft copy licence. I wonder whether this might be an opportunity to clarify that situation.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I do not have that clarity yet. I anticipate that it is something I will have to talk to the team about over the next few days and, indeed, probably weeks, given the state of the pandemic.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Sea fishing licences: further provision
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 3, page 52, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) A sea fishing licensing authority must attach to any sea fishing licence appropriate conditions with respect to the safety of the boat and its crew.”
This amendment would require the licensing authority to set appropriate conditions regarding safety when granting a sea fishing licence.
This amendment continues the theme that we have had for a number of amendments: safety. I am grateful that the efforts of the Departments for Transport and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have contributed to an improvement in safety and, importantly, the involvement of more fishers in making decisions about safety—not just regulation of them for safety purposes—but I think we all agree that more work still needs to be done.
I mentioned earlier the need to have more fishers wearing lifejackets that come as standard with personal locator beacons, which take the “search” out of the search and rescue when boats go down or fishers are washed overboard. I want to see more stability work, especially for our smaller boats that I mentioned earlier. Having remote vessel monitoring and CCTV on board, which was proposed in amendment 1 in the Lords, helps ensure that fishing stays within the law, but it also incentivises fishers to wear a lifejacket and come home safely to each other. I know there is cross-party concern about this issue, and I want to reiterate the support for cross-party working that I gave the Minister earlier. I will not say any more about remote vessel monitoring, because that comes later in the Bill, but the amendment was an attempt to probe the Government position on this issue.
Victoria Prentis
While being very sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment and, indeed, all attempts to improve safety at sea, I feel that it is unnecessary. These are complex areas that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are the responsibility of both the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as well as being our responsibility. Fishing vessel owners are responsible for ensuring their vessels comply with the regulations on construction and how they are operated. All fishing vessels are surveyed or inspected. If the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is not satisfied with the safety standards around a vessel’s construction, or if it discovers an emerging safety issue, the safety certificate will not be issued. If the vessel has a certificate, it may be detained and able to leave port only to enable repairs to be carried out.
As I mentioned earlier, maritime safety is already extensively covered in legislation and accompanied by comprehensive guidance, and I do not think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make any tangible difference to safety. Education and behaviour change are what we know will make a difference. With that explanation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I now call the Minister to move amendment 100. [Interruption.] Sorry, the shadow Minister—this is not a good performance from your Chair. I apologise. I shall up my game.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the confidence that you have in me and my party. It is consistent with some of your comments in the media recently. Thank you very much, Chair.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 100, in schedule 3, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must include a prohibition on the use of any form of electric pulse beam trawl fishing.’
This amendment would require sea fishing licences to prohibit electric pulse beam trawl fishing.
The amendment that has been tabled in my name and that of the shadow fisheries Minister relates to pulse beam trawling, which is an area that we briefly touched on earlier, and I know that colleagues have similar views on this issue. What we are attempting to do with this amendment is to prohibit the use of electro-pulse beam trawling in any form. I suspect that the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed because of the statutory instrument that was passed last year. However, I hope to press her further on enforcement in this area.
Parliament initially rejected Labour’s proposal to ban pulse beam trawling but then saw the light and passed a statutory instrument to put into action the intention behind the original amendment that we tabled the last time we discussed the Fisheries Bill. However, I am concerned that the scientific derogation is too large, allowing 5% of a fleet—up to 200 vessels, potentially—to use this gear.
I am grateful that the Minister set out earlier her intent that the English fisheries Minister should effectively remove the licences from those boats that have electro-pulse gear in English waters. However, what this amendment seeks is a prohibition on the use of any form of electro-pulse beam trawling on any boats with any flag in our waters. There is a very strong environmental case for doing so. Electro-pulse beam trawling is utter vandalism of our seabed. It is indiscriminate—in particular, it kills many smaller fish that might otherwise grow and reproduce. Therefore, it poses a greater threat of stock damage than other methods of fishing. In particular we are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, about the risk of this technology in certain locations around our waters, where the use of electro-pulse beam trawling methods and gear can be disguised by the claim that other gear is being used.
The Minister will know that I and other Labour Members have strong views on how we need to protect our marine protected areas, and about the gear used in those areas. We believe that such protection should be part of the nine-year journey that we effectively have between now and 2030, when our marine protected areas will effectively need to become no-take zones. Again, I will reiterate what I said on Tuesday about that issue, namely that it would do the Government credit and do the debate a lot of good if they could start the conversation with our coastal communities about how that will happen, because I do not think there is awareness of that situation among our coastal communities and I think that, when they find out about it, it will come as quite a shock to them.
So, to support the work of the Minister and to help her to have an easy life by not having to respond to angry fishers when they find out about that change, there is a debate to be had around this issue. I think that debate can be softened somewhat by clearly saying that we do not support in any way the use of this method of fishing—electro-pulse beam trawling—and that, as an independent coastal state, we will outlaw it in our waters.
Importantly, the amendment seeks to remove the scientific derogation that was in the SI by saying that we do not want this technology in our waters at all. I am concerned about the scientific derogation being used, as other countries have sometimes used it, to disguise commercial fishing activities. Indeed, if we look at our friends over in the Netherlands, how much of their fleet was using this particular gear and disguising it behind a scientific purpose is a cause for concern.
So, in support of the amendment, I will say again that there is both cross-party concern and concern in all our fishing communities. A statutory instrument was delivered to put into practice what Labour proposed last time, but I do not think that it is working to the extent that we had initially intended it would. I remember that when we discussed this issue then, there was a concern about how enforcement would work. I encourage the Minister to work with her officials to look again at enforcement in this area, because it seems that environmental groups and some fisheries have a legitimate concern about the potential damage being done to specific marine areas by this method of fishing.
Victoria Prentis
We have rehearsed some of these arguments already today and I know that the hon. Gentleman had this debate several times with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before he became Secretary of State.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the statutory instrument made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 prohibits foreign fishing boats from fishing with electric current in UK waters. As I said earlier, the four English-registered vessels using it have been informed by the Maritime Management Organisation that their authorisations will be withdrawn at the end of this year. The authorisation for the single electro-pulse beam trawler registered in Scotland will be reviewed by Scottish Ministers in advance of July 2021, when the EU prohibition comes into force.
Pulse fishing will be prohibited, so its enforcement will be dealt with in the same way as any other type of illegal or unlawful fishing. I will continue to keep in touch with the Marine Management Organisation as to the position at sea. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send us details of any specific instances and concerns he has. I remind him that the MMO can check any vessel fishing in our waters at any time, so it will be dealt with in the normal way. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
The concern put out there is specifically about enforcement. I realise that the Minister does not have figures to hand on the scope of enforcement, which would be useful for the debate. However, I will seek those through a parliamentary question. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 3, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must include a prohibition on using a fishing boat greater than 100 metres in length in any of the protected areas specified in subsection (7).
(7) The protected areas to which the prohibition in subsection (6) applies are marine conservation zones and marine protected areas as defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(8) The list of protected areas in subsection (7) may be added to by the Secretary of State by means of regulations.’.
This amendment would include in the sea fishing licence conditions a prohibition on using a fishing boat longer than 100 metres in protected areas.
The amendment seeks to address the concern received from constituents by nearly every single Member of the House about supertrawlers and the activities of fishing boats larger than 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas. Until recently, Britain did not have a single supertrawler larger than 100 metres, but one that previously flew a foreign flag has been reflagged in the last few weeks—I believe to help with quota aggregation, which is a practice used in particular by larger foreign-owned companies for moving more quota around their different boats—which means we have one. Regardless of whether we have one supertrawler over 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas or more, we as a Parliament must take a view about whether we want such supertrawlers fishing in our marine protected areas.
The Greenpeace campaign on this issue has attracted the signatures of not only a large number of Back Benchers, but a number of Ministers. I appreciate that it is difficult for DEFRA Ministers to sign up for a campaign about the Department they look after, but it is good to see that there is support within Government for banning supertrawlers over 100 metres in our marine protected areas. That is why, reflecting widespread public concern, we tabled the amendment to ban those fishing boats in excess of 100 metres from fishing in the UK’s MPAs.
A Greenpeace investigation revealed that in the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent 5,500 hours fishing in marine protected areas. Those are areas meant to safeguard vulnerable marine habitats; instead, they are being threatened by highly destructive industrial fishing methods, including those deployed by these boats that can harvest huge quantities of fish from our oceans.
The Secretary of State already has the power to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres and indeed the Minister and her Department could choose to deploy that licence condition. I note that, to date, the Government have not done so. Now that this issue has been brought to the public’s attention, a positive Government response is important. The amendment seeks to do so by amending the primary legislation. If the Minister chooses to oppose this sensible amendment, subsequent secondary legislation or confirmation of alterations in fishing licences would be required.
There is a good case for banning supertrawlers over 100 metres from fishing in marine protected areas. It should have happened already. The UN oceans treaty, which was signed up to following encouragement from Labour by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), with much applause, sets out the ambitious target of having 30% of the world’s oceans fully protected by 2030. That is a very good ambition, which supports a number of UN policies and fragile fisheries right across the world. Indeed, actually the Government should be praised for the way in which they have worked with our overseas territories to create marine reserves around those territories, and especially those in the south Atlantic.
However, there is much more to be done. We cannot simply deliver such a policy by creating marine reserves around overseas territories. We need a policy for UK waters. That is what the Benyon review into highly protected marine areas effectively did. This amendment is a first step on the nine-year process that I spoke about at the start of my remarks that basically says that the Government have committed to make 30% of the world’s oceans fully protected with no-take zones, and as part of that they are taking the first step by banning supertrawlers. This is a very difficult debate. I say that knowing how hard this will be to discuss with fishers.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I understand how contentious this is. Is it not the case that the marine protected areas are there to protect the seabed, and that most of the trawlers fish mid-water and catch species that move well beyond those protected areas? I am not seeking to defend them; I am simply saying that we need to understand exactly the impact that the trawlers have on the marine protected areas.
Luke Pollard
The former Minister raises a good question. Marine protected areas do not exclusively protect the seabed, although that is a clear part of the validity of any marine protection. Such areas also protect species mix and can also deal with bird life and other forms of ocean-going life. The issue is complicated by the diversity that we seek to protect. Marine protected areas protect the seabed, but they also apply in other ways as well. None the less, the commitment that the Government have made around the UN oceans treaty is one that the Labour party fully supports. I say in all candour to the Minister that it will be a difficult sell and a difficult journey between now and 2030 to pitch that to fishers, but we need to have that honest conversation with them.
The Benyon review’s remarks about how highly protected marine protected areas can be designated, which effectively make MPAs no-take zones, need to include fishers. There is huge support among British fishers, particularly among the small boat fleet, for the banning of supertrawlers. Apart from the supertrawler that I mentioned earlier that currently flies a British flag, but did not until very recently, all the supertrawlers that fish in UK waters, especially in marine protected areas, are foreign-owned boats. There is a huge advantage to our sustainability and our support for our domestic fishing industry if we make the case now to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres and if we start the conversation about how we move the Benyon review recommendations into a greater awareness with a plan as to how that comes about. I hope the Minister—no doubt she objects to this particular amendment—will set out how she intends to implement a similar ban, because I think a ban is coming. I cannot see that the Government’s position is sustainable if they do not ban supertrawlers over 100 metres, if only due to the very sincere and heartfelt public opposition to that method of fishing.
Victoria Prentis
I do recognise the huge interest and concern from across the House and from many of our constituents in the campaign against supertrawlers. However, once again, I do not consider the amendment necessary. There is a devolution issue with it, and I politely say again that the Bill is deliberately a framework Bill to enable the Government to take powers that would enable them not to license supertrawlers in future. Although the amendment is well intentioned, it is simply not necessary.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing to lead diplomatic efforts to protect at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030, and 357 marine protected areas already protect about 25% of UK waters. Of course, protecting those areas is only the first step towards achieving protected waters. When we were in the EU, we had to get agreement from other member states with an interest to bring forward management measures in MPAs. Owing to the level of fishing interest in our waters from others in the EU, we were not able to reach agreement in the way that we wanted to on these measures. Now that we have left, the Bill already gives us the powers in schedule 9 to protect English waters, both inshore and offshore. We anticipate that this programme of work and new licences will begin as soon as possible in the new year.
As well as the new management measures that we will be able to introduce, paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 to the Bill provides for the relevant licensing authority to attach conditions to a licence where necessary. The licensing conditions in the Bill are wide and flexible, and should be a suitably flexible way of managing our fisheries in the future. When the transition period ends, we will be able to restrict the activities of foreign vessels in our waters and decide, for the first time in 40 years, who can come in to fish. The Bill’s licensing regime already gives us the powers to do that.
I understand completely that the thought of large boats hoovering up fish in protected areas of the sea is concerning for many; however, the impact of a vessel on an MPA is determined by how damaging the method used is, rather than the size of the vessel. Pelagic fishing, which is the method usually used by vessels of this size, and which takes place within the water column, is unlikely to affect the seabed features that most marine protected areas are designed to protect.
As I said earlier, an added complexity is that the regulation of sea fishing is devolved. The amendment, in seeking to legislate for a blanket approach across all the Administrations, would be a problem for the devolution settlements. I hope that I have sufficiently reassured the hon. Gentleman that mechanisms to manage and restrict the activities of supertrawlers are already in the Bill, if that is the route we choose to take. I hope that I have also reassured him by reiterating the Government’s commitment to further protecting our sea, and I ask that he withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
If the Minister had given a commitment to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres with the licence conditions, I would have happily withdrawn the amendment, but as she has said only that the Government are taking powers, with no commitment to ban supertrawlers, I am afraid that we could be waiting for a very long time for those powers to be used. As such, and because the issue is so pressing and of such public concern, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 95, in schedule 3, page 55, line 4, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment would make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
This is a very simple amendment, which seeks to move from a negative process to an affirmative one. We have seen that good parliamentary scrutiny improves Government legislation and that, when things are rushed or not given scrutiny, faults and things that even those pushing the devices may not be aware of emerge. That is why we are seeking, as standard in such matters, to move negative procedures to affirmative ones, to ensure that the Government can achieve their objectives by having improved legislation, rather than rushed legislation that they then seek to change subsequently.
Later amendments that remove lots of the statutory instruments that we spent many hours working on show that good scrutiny lends itself to the delivery of Government objectives and better policy making, and offers more people the chance to contribute to policy making. That is why we are seeking to have an affirmative resolution policy here, rather than a negative one.
Victoria Prentis
Much as I enjoy our exchanges, the difficulty with this amendment is that it would mean that every time the Government wanted to change a highly technical rule about the licensing of fishing boats, it would be subject to debate.
The change of procedure would apply to two powers. First, paragraph 7(1) of schedule 3 restates an existing power to make regulations about how licensing functions should be exercised. In our view, the existing regulation-making power is necessary so that the UK’s licensing authorities may make provision about the operation of their licensing regimes—such as in relation to the manner in which they issue and notify licences. The nature of those matters does not warrant the affirmative procedure.
Secondly, paragraph 7(3) of schedule 3 provides the power to authorise the making of charges in relation to licenses. The procedure followed in this paragraph is the same as that for provisions that we are replacing in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The use of the negative procedure continues the status quo in that case. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
In the debate on landing fish in coastal communities and banning supertrawlers, the Minister said that the salvation to those causes lies in the licence restrictions. She cannot argue on those controversial issues that the future needs to be trusted to the licence conditions and then deny Parliament’s scrutiny of those licence conditions. However, recognising that she probably will take this as an opportunity for greater consultation, perhaps with stakeholders, before such decisions are made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 27, in schedule 3, page 56, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a) sections 15 to 17,’
This amendment updates the definition of “licensing function” so that it includes functions under clause 16.
This is a technical amendment that updates the definition of licensing function. It will allow licensing authorities to transfer the licensing functions in clause 16 to another licensing authority if required.
I have one bit of good news for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which is that I have just had confirmation that licences in England can continue to be emailed. That is not entirely relevant to this amendment, Chair—I am sorry.
Luke Pollard
Briefly, it is good to hear that licences can be emailed. I will come back to that point.
This technical amendment relates to how foreign boats and UK boats could be regarded in different regulatory environments, so I do not think it is as slight as the Minister is suggesting. How British boats and foreign boats are judged and regulated is at the heart of the Bill, because I am concerned that there is not a level playing field. It is good news that the licence can be emailed and I will pick that up in due course, but we will not be opposing this amendment.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule replicates the powers in section 4 of the
Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. Those powers are given to the licensing authorities and are necessary to implement a vessel licensing regime. Paragraph 1(1) includes powers to attach conditions to a licence. The schedule provides that licensing authorities may add, vary or remove a licence. The licensing authorities will have the power to require a master owner or charterer who is named to provide any information they ask for. Failure to do so will constitute an offence.
The schedule allows licensing authorities to apply licence conditions to restrict the number of boats fishing in any one area or restrict fishing for specified species at certain times of the year. The licensing authorities have the ability to make arrangements for any licensing functions to be carried out by others on their behalf.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
Penalties for offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The purpose of the clause is to set out the penalties that can be applied for access and licensing offences in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Offences by bodies corporate etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the offences that apply to bodies corporate and the officers that have committed them through consent, connivance or negligence. It makes it clear that “officer” means a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in one of those capacities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Jurisdiction of court to try offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The effect of the clause is that, where an offence under the Bill has been committed, proceedings can be taken against individuals in any part of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Minor and consequential I
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause introduces schedule 4, which sets out the consequential I arising from the new access and licensing provisions introduced in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Access and licensing: minor and consequential I
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 57, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
This amendment removes the power to extend section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976 (which is repealed by paragraph 3(1) of this Schedule) to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Victoria Prentis
These are technical I. Schedule 4 repeals the current regime that would manage access of foreign fishing boats to British waters through the use of designation orders. These I ensure that that regime and the designation orders are also repealed in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—with their agreement, of course. I commend the I to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
This is a completely uncontroversial amendment, which we are happy to support. However, I am keen to understand from the Minister why the measure was not included in the original Bill and is being proposed as a Government amendment, because that removes the ability for others to have time to consider the implications.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question—I was not involved in the creation of the Bill—but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details. I suspect that it was not spotted.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 63, line 14, at end insert—
“‘temporary foreign vessel licence’ means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks;”.
This amendment is one of a group of I that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Victoria Prentis
This group of I enables the four UK fishing administrations to issue licences to foreign vessels in a shortened timespan, if it should prove necessary to do so.
The preferred system of licensing is that, should access be granted, the UK and the EU, Norwegian or Faroese licensing authorities would exchange lists of vessels wishing to fish in each other’s waters. Following relevant checks, the lists would be validated and the UK would issue licences to individual vessels. That process would be undertaken by the Marine Management Organisation, acting as our single issuing authority.
That will necessarily take some time and there is a risk that the delivery of fishing licences to vessel owners will be delayed. The impact would be that vessels from the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands would not be able to fish in our waters at the start of any fishing agreement.
I stress that this is very much a contingency solution to provide maximum flexibility for the UK licensing authorities. The aim would be to have full licences ready to issue for all individual vessels at the start of the fishing year, if a negotiated outcome on access has been reached. As a contingency, accepting that that will not always be possible, we have devised the new mechanism. It in no way undermines the principle that any foreign vessels that we allow to fish in our waters must be licensed and must follow the same rules as our vessels. The only difference between the systems is about who is informed about the granting of a licence and the time in which it can be processed.
Luke Pollard
The I pick up on one theme I have raised with the Minister around the difference between a hard copy and an electronic licence. That relates to the experience of British fishers in particular and the MMO’s licensing arrangements. As we discussed earlier, arrangements have changed in relation to the covid procedures, particularly in relation to the carrying of a hard copy versus an electronic copy. My reading of the amendment is that it provides a different service and puts a different requirement on foreign fishers than on UK fishing boats.
Current UK fishing licence conditions, including conditions 6.1a and 6.1b, require UK fishing boats to carry a hard copy of their licence on board, or to be able to produce it at a time and place requested by the regulator or their agent, which in most cases in England is the Royal Navy, within five days. This amendment seeks to make an electronic version a permanent solution for foreign boats, but not for UK boats.
I understand that we have seen changes with the covid situation. I hope the Minister has effectively announced that the licence will now be electronic for all UK boats. She may need to bring forward a statutory instrument to adjust the regulations after the covid regulations are removed. My understanding of the covid regulations is that they will all go and we will revert back to the pre-covid regulations, which would require a new statutory instrument to be brought forward. That would be a welcome move because it would put UK fishers on a level playing field with foreign fishers.
With this amendment, foreign fishers get a better service than UK fishers, outside the current covid regulations. I am concerned about that, so I shall be grateful if the Minister will set out how that would work, particularly regarding enforcement and the difficulties of obtaining signal while at sea, in order to demonstrate to an enforcement vessel during a stop that a vessel has an electronic licence if it does not have a hard copy.
We know there have been difficulties in the past with foreign boats fishing in our waters without a licence and not being checked. The Minister will probably be aware of the case of the Dutch-registered Friesian that was scalloping and landing in and out of UK ports without a licence, before it was finally checked by the French, who took it to task. That was a number of years ago and it is extraordinary that steps have not been taken to address that level of enforcement since then. There is a point to make about both UK and foreign fishing boats being regulated in a similar way.
I realise that the approach that the Minister has taken in the past is to say that other nations regulate their own boats. However, when fishing in our waters, using permissions granted by the UK Government or UK fisheries authorities, there should be a similar approach, whether the boat is British-based or foreign-based.
Victoria Prentis
To answer the point directly about whether we are making it easier for foreign boats than for UK boats, that it is not the case. If access is granted, all the facts in the list will be checked and validated by the single issuing authority, devolved Administration or Crown dependency. That would happen regardless of the licensing mechanism used. That is a temporary solution. Permanent licences will be needed, and will be issued to individual licence holders as soon as they can be processed.
I have had confirmation that the MMO does not require physical licences, but the licence is required to be available to be shown on a boat, either on a phone, by email or by whatever is easiest for the licence holder. I do not believe that further legislation is required. For the purposes of the Fisheries Bill, we need to crack on. When I get back to the office I will check whether further legislation is required, but I do not believe that that is the case.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendments made: 30, in schedule 4, page 63, line 23, after “words”, insert—
“(i) after ‘A licence’ insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) ”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 63, line 40, leave out “this regulation” and insert “paragraphs (1) and (2)”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 63, line 44, leave out from “charterer;” to end of line 47 and insert—
“(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.
(2B) A temporary foreign vessel licence shall be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Welsh Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.
(2C) In paragraph (2B), ‘the relevant person’, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 64, line 10, after “licence”, insert
“, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 64, line 21, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in the heading, for ‘Delivery’ substitute ‘Granting’;
(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(c) in paragraph (3)—
(i) after ‘A licence’ insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) for ‘a nominee’s’ substitute ‘an’;
(iii) for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic means at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(3B) A notice communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall be treated as given immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.
(3C) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2B) shall be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’;
(e) in paragraph (5) (in each place it occurs), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 64, line 27, leave out from “paragraph (a)” to end of line 28 and insert—
“(i) after ‘2(1)’ insert ‘or (2B)’;
(ii) omit ‘, and a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b),’;
(iii) for ‘delivered or given’ substitute ‘granted’;”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 65, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) after that definition insert—
‘“temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 65, line 40, after “words”, insert—
“(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) ”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 65, line 43, at end insert—
“(ba) after that paragraph insert —
‘(1A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Scottish Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.
(1B) In paragraph (1A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.’”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 66, line 3, leave out from “notices)” to end of line 4 and insert—
“(a) in the heading, for ‘Delivery’ substitute ‘Granting’;
(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(c) in paragraph (3)—
(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) for ‘a nominee’s’ substitute ‘an’;
(iii) for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(3B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 3(1A) is to be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’;
(e) in paragraph (5) (in both places), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 66, line 4, at end insert—
“(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices to have effect), in paragraph (a)—
(a) after ‘3(1)’, insert ‘or (1A)’;
(b) for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 41, page 66, line 30, at end insert—
“(ba) for the definition of ‘notice’ substitute—
‘“notice” means a notice of variation, suspension or revocation of a licence;’;”.
This amendment updates the definition of “notice” in the Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) Regulations 2012 to reflect other changes to those regulations made in this Schedule.
Amendment 42, in schedule 4, page 66, line 44, at end insert—
“‘temporary foreign vessel licence’ means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 43, in schedule 4, page 66, line 46, leave out paragraph (a) to paragraph (c) on page 67 and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (1)—
(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) for the words from ‘the owner’ to the end substitute ‘an appropriate recipient (“P”)’;
(b) after that paragraph insert—
‘(1A) In paragraph (1) “an appropriate recipient” means—
(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a relevant fishing boat—
(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or
(ii) a nominee of the owner or charterer;
(b) in relation to a licence or a notice, relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.’;
(c) in paragraph (2), after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence, ’;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert —
‘(3A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Marine Management Organisation or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.
(3B) In paragraph (3A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.’;
(e) omit paragraph (8).”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 44, in schedule 4, page 67, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) In regulation 4 (time at which licences are delivered and notice given)—
(a) in the heading and paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(b) after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated as described in regulation 3(3A) is treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’;
(c) in paragraph (7) (in both places), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.
(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices have effect), in paragraph (a), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 45, in schedule 4, page 68, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) after that definition insert—
‘“temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.’”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 46, in schedule 4, page 68, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (1)—
(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) omit ‘Northern Ireland’;
(iii) for the words from ‘the owner or charterer of the boat’ to the end substitute ‘an appropriate recipient’;
(b) in paragraph (2), after ‘A licence’, insert ‘(other than a temporary foreign vessel licence)’;
(c) in paragraph (3), for the words from ‘the owner or charterer of the boat’ to the end substitute ‘an appropriate recipient’;
(d) after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) In paragraphs (1) to (4), “an appropriate recipient” means—
(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Northern Ireland fishing boat—
(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or
(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer;
(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by delivering it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Department or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.
(4C) In paragraph (4B), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.’”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 47, in schedule 4, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
“(5) In regulation 4 (time when licences are delivered and notices given), after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence delivered as described in regulation 3(4B) is treated as delivered immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’
(6) In regulation 5 (time when licences, variations, suspensions or revocations have effect), in paragraph (a), after ‘3(2)’, insert ‘or (4B)’.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 4, page 68, line 22, at end insert—
“Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019
22 The Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/507 (W. 117)) (which has not come into force) is revoked.
Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019
23 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/500 (W. 116)) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
24 The Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/523) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019
25 The Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/87) (which has not come into force) is revoked.
Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
26 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/88) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019
27 The Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/345) (which has not come into force) is revoked.”
This amendment revokes various statutory instruments that have not come into force, and were made as part of contingency planning in case the Bill was not passed before IP completion day.
The amendment, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, revokes contingency legislation made in March 2019—wasn’t that fun?—in the absence of the Fisheries Bill and in anticipation of leaving the EU on 29 March 2019, as was originally expected. I do not think I need to say anything further at this point. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
We spent a lot of time on these fisheries statutory instruments, and concerns were raised by Labour at the time as to whether we would need to revisit them—a point that the Minister at the time, although not this Minister, refuted. It turns out that the Government were incorrect and the Opposition were correct, as we are repeating activities here. This again underlines the importance of proper time for scrutiny and getting things right before pushing through a legislative programme. Taking greater care would have improved the outcomes and avoided our needing this Government amendment to revoke the SIs.
Indeed, the question is: why were the SIs not revoked in the original Bill, rather than as a result of a Government amendment? That pattern of behaviour—last-minute changes to things that were rushed—is concerning and makes me worry about the effectiveness of the legislation being passed if things are rushed in this way.
Victoria Prentis
I do not think I need to respond to that in detail. The SIs are not different from the provisions of the Bill. As I said, I am sure that the work of the earlier Committees has in fact fed into this excellent Bill, which I have absolutely no doubt about commending to the House.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 69, line 21, at beginning insert—
“(1) Regulations made under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A of that Act) in relation to licences under section 4 of that Act have effect on and after the coming into force of paragraph 6(2) as if they were made under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
This is a technical amendment clarifying the transitional provisions applying on the transition from the licensing regime in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to the licensing regime in the Bill.
This is another technical amendment. In clarifying the licensing regime as it applies to foreign vessels, parliamentary counsel were of the view that a specific transitional provision might be sensible. The amendment clarifies the transitional provisions applying on the transition from the licensing regime in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967—my favourite—to the licensing regime in the Bill. It is a technical amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
I just note for the record that this change has been included as a Government amendment, not as part of the original Bill. I am concerned that other things have been missed and not included.
Luke Pollard
The Minister is shaking her head. It is good to have that on the record. When we come to future SIs that take out bits that have been missed, because of the pace at which the Government are going, that can be correctly quoted back at whichever Minister is in the role at the time.
The Chair
I am not sure whether a shaking of the head puts the Minister in jail, but I will leave that to be decided in a future debate.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I think what we are all learning, Sir Charles, is the extraordinarily complex and interrelated nature of the legislation in this area. I am sure we can always continue to improve on it, but I am very proud of the Bill.
The schedule amends UK legislation in consequence of the access and licensing provisions introduced in the Bill. The matters covered are access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats, the licensing of British fishing boats and transitional provisions. In particular, section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976, which sets out the current law on access by foreign boats, is repealed, as is the secondary legislation made under that section.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24
Power of Secretary of State to determine fishing opportunities
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 24, page 16, line 14, leave out “may determine” and insert “must determine”.
This amendment makes it compulsory for the Secretary of State to make a determination relating to fishing opportunities.
Labour’s amendments to clause 24 relate to the Secretary of State’s function of setting the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by fishing boats, both British and foreign, and the days that they may spend at sea during a specified period. Further to the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, this amendment seeks to make that an affirmative rather than a negative process.
Victoria Prentis
The current drafting of clause 24 gives a statutory power to the Secretary of State to determine UK fishing opportunities. The power may be exercised only where necessary to comply with the UK’s international obligations. Although most determinations are likely to be made to implement any obligations resulting from negotiations with other states, the Secretary of State could also make a determination to implement the UK’s sustainable fishing duties under international law. A determination may cover fishing effort as well as quota.
Amending the power would make the scope of the Secretary of State’s function uncertain. If it became obligatory to make a determination, would that duty apply to non-quota stocks or to stocks that are wholly located within devolved areas? I am concerned that my colleagues in the devolved Administrations would not welcome that. I assure the hon. Lady that, through the Fisheries Bill, there will be greater transparency of how we manage and allocate quota in the UK through the publication of the Secretary of State’s determination of UK fishing opportunities, which will be laid before Parliament. Given that explanation, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 24, page 16, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
“(a) the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use the British catch quota;
(b) the maximum number of days that British fishing boats or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use the British catch quota may spend at sea.”
This amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught, or of the maximum number of days at sea.
I believe that the amendment brings us one step closer to taking back control of our waters. We should have control over what non-UK boats do in our waters, including how much fish they can catch. As hon. Members know from our lengthy discussions on these matters, the Opposition are keen to ensure that the sustainability of our environment and our fish stocks are fundamental to fisheries management, and that our small British fishers and their coastal communities see the greatest possible benefit from fishing opportunities and redistributed quotas.
The amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State for the maximum quantity of sea fish that can be caught and the maximum number of days that can be spent at sea. It seeks to ensure that foreign fishing vessels are not exempt from the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction. In our efforts to ensure that we have a sustainable and growing UK fishing industry, the British Government should be able to set limits for all boats operating in our waters to protect UK fish stocks and ensure the survival of our UK fishing industry.
Victoria Prentis
We do not think that this amendment is necessary, as foreign fishing boats do not hold any rights to use British catch or effort quota. UK quota is allocated only to vessels registered and licensed in the UK. It is, of course, true that the ultimate beneficial owners of some UK fishing businesses are foreign. This is because UK fishing companies and their assets can be bought and sold like any other company in any other industry, but no foreign-registered fishing boat has the right to use our quota, nor will they in future. Any foreign fishing boat permitted to fish in UK waters in future would fish against its own state’s quota. Given that the amendment would not be effective in practice, I ask that it be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 24, page 16, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) No determination of effort quota under subsection (1)(b) may be made until the completion of a trial for the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods used, documentation methods used and any other relevant considerations that demonstrates that there is no evidence that such a determination—
(a) might cause a detriment to the achievement of any of the fisheries objectives;
(b) might cause the maximum sustainable yield of any stock to be exceeded;
(c) might reduce the accuracy of the recording of catches;
(d) might increase the risk of danger to the crew of fishing boats.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State making a determination of effort quota until it has been shown not to cause adverse impacts through a days at sea trial.
Amendment 114 would require the Secretary of State to commit to a days at sea trial to ensure the effort quota is not harmful to the fisheries objectives, the state of fish stocks or boat crew members. Days at sea or effort quotas should be the result of careful planning and consideration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said on Second Reading:
“Fish stocks are a finite resource, yet fishing quotas are being set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels year on year. Estimates suggest that restoring fish populations would not only safeguard our marine life, but lead to £244 million a year for the industry and create more than 5,000 jobs.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 96.]
I cannot stress enough the need for quotas to closely follow scientific guidance so that fish stocks are not depleted further. With this amendment, the Opposition are calling on the Secretary of State to complete trials on
“the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods”
and “documentation methods used” before making a determination of fishing opportunities. This would ensure that effort quotas do not negatively impact the achievement of any of the fisheries objectives under clause 1 of the Bill, exceed the maximum sustainable yield of any stocks, reduce the accuracy of the recording of catches, or put the lives of fishers at risk. I do not believe it is too much to ask of the Government that they commit to a trial that ensures the sustainability of our stocks and the industry.
If the Minister is confident that the trial would find that an effort quota is not harmful, there is nothing to fear or oppose in having it take place, and ensuring the matter can be concluded with its findings. Conversely, if it is the case that the effort quota is harmful to the fisheries objectives, the state of the fish stocks or the boat crew members, I am sure the Minister would not want that harm to continue. As I have said, the amendment simply commits the Secretary of State to undertake a days at sea trial to ensure that we are not causing long-term harm to the industry and our fish stocks. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to do so.
Victoria Prentis
There is already a long-standing effort scheme in place for some shellfish and all demersal fish in the western waters, which will become retained UK law. To effectively manage the western waters effort regime in future, we may need the Secretary of State determination to vary effort baselines in response to the latest scientific evidence or, of course, the outcome of annual fisheries negotiations. I am concerned that the amendment would hamper our ability to improve the western waters regime. Requiring no evidence to be found seems unlikely to be achieved through the pilot, so I suggest that the effect of this amendment would be to stop the effective use of effort as a way of determining fishing opportunities in future.
Luke Pollard
We have not spent as much time discussing effort during the passage of this Bill as we did during the course of the last Bill. One reason for that is that Ministers subsequently committed to undertake days at sea trials, and there have been discussions among various ports as to which ones would undertake those trials. As the Minister will know, Plymouth is one of those ports; it is keen to undertake the trials, and with a very active council on fisheries matters and the shadow Secretary of State representing the area, that would be the perfect opportunity to prove or disprove whether this works. Is it still the Government’s intention to hold those days at sea trials, and if so, would they be a substitute for what the amendment seeks to provide?
Victoria Prentis
Given the specific nature of this clause, I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in the way he would like me to. What we are talking about here is the effort trial involving some quota stocks, and without further time to check what is envisaged in any Plymouth trial, I do not want to categorically rule it in or out.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Whether it is a Plymouth trial, a Fraserburgh trial or a Grimsby trial, the concept is of a series of trials to look at days at sea and effort-based fishing, beyond the stocks that already have effort-based regimes in place. That was an important concession that the Government made after the pausing of the last Fisheries Bill. If the Minister does not know the status of those trials, perhaps she could write to the Opposition to set out those details. It is important that we have clarity on that.
Victoria Prentis
As far as I am concerned, we are very keen to make the scientific evidence and the baselines that we use as good as possible. I think the hon. Gentleman is aware of the work that is carrying on in that regard. However, we do need the flexibility to respond to changing science. I am in no way denigrating the pilot schemes, which are important and ongoing. This is probably, again, not a matter for this amendment, but something that we will continue to discuss for many years.
The problem with the amendment is that it would stop the effective use of effort as a way of determining fishing opportunities. I am not saying that we do not need the science—of course we do, and we need pilots to give us that science—but I do not want this to prevent us from using a precautionary approach to fisheries management where that is appropriate.
I am concerned that the amendment would put fisheries and their management at risk up and down the country, so I expect it will be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 24, page 16, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must ensure that a baseline stock assessment has been made for all non-quota species by 2030 and must report on progress on an annual basis.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gather a baseline stock assessment for those stocks that are not subject to catch limits.
Amendment 115 calls for a baseline stock assessment to be made for all non-quota species by 2030, and requires an annual report on progress. I believe the amendment is vital to ensuring the environmental and economic sustainability of our non-quota fish stocks. As I hope we all acknowledge, the absence of comprehensive data, even on quota species, has led to considerable issues that could threaten the long-term future of the industry and the marine environment itself. Overfishing is only one of the problems caused.
To ensure that the objectives in the Bill are met, the amendment calls for a baseline stock assessment to be made for all non-quota species by 2030 and an annual report on progress.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The hon. Lady is talking about a specific point in the trophic pyramid of the ecosystem. She is asking for an assessment of all non-stock species, but is that down to the nudibranchs on the rocks? I can see certain practical challenges with that, even though it is just fish.
Katherine Fletcher
Okay. The trophic pyramid does not allow—just because it has a backbone—for it to be at that point in the ecosystem because it is called a fish in biology. I wonder whether there are unintended consequences of the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
We hope that there will not be unintended consequences, but the amendment speaks to those fish that we actually go out and fish. I hope that clarifies the point.
As such, it seems that baseline stock assessments and annual reporting of progress on this matter are essential if we are to ensure that informed decisions can be made to protect the future of all non-quota species and the fishers who catch them. We know that many of these species are under great pressure. A deficiency in the data can be an excuse for fishing unsustainably. We cannot allow ourselves to plead ignorance, when the important step within this amendment has the potential to prevent such mistakes being made, which we know would be an environmental and economic disaster for the communities that rely on our fish stocks.
The Chair
Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Sorry, I call the Minister. I am sure it would be the Minister’s pleasure for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Victoria Prentis
It would indeed be our pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn, because we think it is disproportionately burdensome, though we agree it is well-intentioned and we absolutely agree that good data is key to making good fisheries management decisions. We also accept that we have too many data-poor stocks, particularly for non-quota stocks, but there are a number of practical issues with the amendment that we think would cause us difficulties.
Fisheries management plans in the Bill require fisheries authorities to specify the actions to assess the status of the stocks covered, or explain how the stocks will be managed sustainably in the absence of sufficient data. Our progress with those plans will be reported on every three years. Many non-quota stocks occur in the waters managed by the devolved Administrations. Most of the functions of gathering that information will be for the DAs, not the Secretary of State. I am concerned about that aspect of this amendment, and I again ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 24, page 16, line 43, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State may also determine, for such year or other period as may be specified in the determination, the maximum number of different descriptions of sea fish that may be caught, tagged and released, for the purposes of gathering data to aid scientific study, by those engaged in recreational fishing.”
This amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to determine a ‘catch, tag and release’ quota for recreational fishing for the purposes of gathering data to aid scientific study.
As outlined with reference to amendment 115, the absence of comprehensive data on our fish stocks inhibits our ability to ensure that we manage our fisheries in a way that is environmentally and economically sustainable. Amendment 116 would give the Secretary of State the power to determine a catch, tag and release quota for our recreational fishers. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who is serving on the Committee, referred to each fishing boat as a “floating science laboratory”. I could not agree more. Fishers are, absolutely, experts in their industry. We must not ignore their knowledge and ability to gather data. In fact, I would argue that they should have a much bigger role in the formation of policy decisions, because they bring to the table not only expertise but an unparalleled passion for ensuring the future survival of the UK fishing industry.
In bringing recreational fishers into much-needed work gathering data on our fish stocks, the amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to allow recreational fishers to assist in the gathering of data on the state of our fish stocks and help scientists to provide up-to-date information and advice to fisheries authorities. In doing so, the Secretary of State would be providing a boost to recreational fishing, while allowing it to play its role in ensuring the sustainability of our fish stocks and better fisheries management for our commercial operators.
Since 2015, huge Atlantic bluefin tuna have appeared late each summer in UK waters. That is an exciting new development for UK fishers. Until the 1950s, we had a thriving recreational bluefin tuna fishery that operated out of Whitby and Scarborough. In the early 1960s, however, those fish disappeared completely from the far north-east Atlantic. That was down to a combination of factors, including long-time climatic cycle shifts and commercial overfishing of their prey species. But as of five years ago, long-term climatic cycles and recovery efforts had helped the Atlantic bluefin to become once again a regular seasonal visitor to our waters. Recreational fishers could take part in its global stock recovery programme. No longer do they have to travel to faraway places to fish that big game fish. Instead, catch and release would enable recreational fishers to aid scientific data gathering on non-quota species that are starting to be found in UK waters.
We have a real opportunity here to create world-class, sustainable and valuable live-release recreational fisheries. The amendment is not just about protecting fish stocks for environmental and conservationist reasons, although that is important. It is about the future prosperity of our fishers and coastal communities, whom we want to see grow in the long as well as the short term.
The Chair
My alertness just improved during the discussion of this amendment. I am so sad that I cannot involve myself in this debate.
Victoria Prentis
As I know you know, Sir Charles, recreational angling within the UK is not currently subject to quota limitations, which the Government are concerned could incorrectly be interpreted as a reference to equivalent measures currently in place for commercial fishers. Discussions with the recreational sector have repeatedly highlighted the fact that it is not particularly interested in being subject to quota restrictions. Its interest is in restoring stocks and improving physical access, so that more successful recreational trips can take place. Indeed, the current industry proposal for a recreational scientific catch, tag and release bluefin tuna fishery is based on the premise that quota would not be required.
The amendment pre-empts the outcome of engagement with stakeholders and careful consideration of the best way to develop a regime, if we believe that that is the right way to go, for recovering species such as bluefin tuna. I have undertaken to meet the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and other colleagues who are interested, at some point before too long, to discuss bluefin tuna specifically. The Government feel that the amendment is unnecessary, as we already have broad powers in relation to scientific trials, data collection and quota allocation.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at the last minute and for agreeing to meet me, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and, perhaps in a different capacity, the Chair to discuss bluefin tuna. Will she address the point about the role of recreational fishers in helping to provide science? That was at the heart of what the shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, was saying. For data-deficient stocks in particular, and for stocks for which data is held but is poorly applied, recreational fishers—a group of people who love their fish and have really strong opinions on making fishing more sustainable—could provide an enormous benefit to Government science.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 24, page 17, line 8, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment would make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The amendment would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. On the first day of the Committee, I spoke at length about the need for more parliamentary scrutiny. Since 2013, no significant progress has been made towards achieving maximum sustainable yield figures, which have languished at about 57% to 68% of stocks fished sustainably in the last seven years.
The powers granted under clause 24(10) give the Secretary of State the power to determine the number of days in a specified period that a boat may spend at sea. Regulations under that power will be affected by the varying technical conditions—from the stowing of fishing gear to entering the UK’s inshore waters or leaving a port—that may affect when a boat should be regarded as fishing. The calculation of what is meant by “a day at sea” is highly technical, so I firmly believe that we need more parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that effort quotas do not exceed scientific advice and damage the sustainability of our fish stocks.
Victoria Prentis
The Government consider that we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to react quickly, with secondary legislation, to make what are often technical amendments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the procedures for the delegated powers in the Bill, and said:
“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”
That Committee also published a report about the Bill on 26 February, and it did not change its views. It should also be noted that an identical amendment was debated and withdrawn in the other place. I therefore invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to determine the UK’s fishing opportunities, to comply with its international obligations. The Secretary of State will be able to set the maximum amount of seafish that may be caught by British fishing boats and the maximum number of days that they can spend at sea. The power would be used to set the level of total allowable catch for UK shared stocks, reflecting anything that we manage to negotiate. It could also be used to ensure our compliance with article 61 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.
The power relates therefore to the high-level function of determining UK fishing opportunities as a whole; it does not relate to the subsequent allocation of those opportunities to the different fisheries administrations, or indeed to their distribution to industry. Under the clause, the Secretary of State would also have the power to make negative resolution regulations about when time will be counted as time at sea for the purposes of the determination.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Duties relating to a determination of fishing opportunities
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 25, page 17, line 19, at end insert—
“(e) the public.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a public consultation prior to making or withdrawing a determination under section 24.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 118, in clause 25, page 17, line 24, at end insert—
“and stating what published scientific advice was used as the basis of the decision,”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state what scientific advice was used when making or withdrawing a determination under section 24.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak to both amendments. Amendment 117 calls for public consultation prior to the Secretary of State making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under clause 24. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that we need to restore public trust in fisheries management decisions and policy. For too long, the British public have had little say in what happens, with decisions made behind closed doors in Brussels. The feeling that decisions that affected the public were made by people far away who knew little about their lives and were not willing to listen has been incredibly powerful, and the frustration that that democratic deficit causes is real.
A public consultation would give the public, and particularly our coastal communities, a say in the fishing opportunities in UK waters. It would show that the Government want to give the public an opportunity to have their say and that they are committed to listening.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady talks about a democratic deficit, but do not many Members of Parliament represent coastal ports, and indeed are there not councillors on the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities? Do not we already have quite strong democratic accountability for the fishing industry and environmental concerns within Parliament and local authorities?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great authority on the subject. I guess that that argument could be applied to pretty much any public consultation. The idea of the amendment is that although, of course, people can come to their local MPs, who can make the case for them, they would be able to feed in directly on the specifics of fishing opportunities.
A public consultation would also, I believe, bring to light the current inequalities in the UK fishing fleet and give the public an opportunity to have their say on how to address bringing back prosperity to coastal communities. It would also give people the opportunity to ensure that the Government and fisheries authorities stay true to the objectives outlined in clause 1—most importantly, the sustainability objective. The British public are increasingly concerned about the climate emergency and the efforts being made to protect our environment. If we are to restore the confidence of the public that the British Government are in complete control not only of our maritime future, but of the conservation and protection of our marine environment, we must involve them in our fisheries management decisions. I believe we should give them a voice, and commit to listening.
Amendment 118 would require the Secretary of State to state what scientific advice was used when making or withdrawing a determination under clause 24. As discussed earlier, the scientific evidence objective requires fisheries authorities to draw on
“the best available scientific advice”
in making their decisions. The Opposition have argued that only that evidence will lead to world-leading sustainable fisheries management.
For the purposes of accountability and effective scrutiny, it seems clear that when making such determinations under clause 24 the Secretary of State should identify the scientific evidence on which the decisions are based. Such decisions by the Secretary of State will have significant impacts on operators and coastal communities, and I do not believe that it would be improper for the Secretary of State to confirm the scientific basis of a decision.
Independent peer-reviewed science must form the basis of all fisheries management decisions. Sadly, we live a world where a minority scientific opinion—the opinion of those who deny the existence of a climate crisis, for example—can cast doubt on the majority of scientific data and advice. It is important that we know who the Government are turning to when they determine the allocation of fishing opportunities under clause 24.
Victoria Prentis
We are concerned about the practical implications of the amendment, as it could result in an unacceptable loss of time in getting access to fishing opportunities at the start of the calendar year. If public consultation were required it would have to take place after international negotiations, which could cause a significant delay. Fishermen would not be able to fish, because they would still be waiting for confirmation of quotas. For fisheries that operate primarily in the early part of the year, such as the mackerel fishery, that could be serious.
It is unclear what benefit public consultation at that stage would bring. The scientific advice, which the hon. Lady is right to mention as important, and which informs negotiation and quota setting, would have been published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea some months earlier. Discussions with industry and other stakeholders about quota setting would ordinarily take place in advance of negotiations, not afterwards.
Turning to amendment 118, the advice on the health and sustainability of fish stocks is already publicly available and is published each year. It is good international advice on the health of fish stocks and total allowable catches each year, and is available to all those who are interested in it. I am afraid I do not see what benefit the two amendments will bring, and I therefore ask that neither be pressed to a vote.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Distribution of fishing opportunities
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 26, page 17, leave out line 38.
This amendment would remove historical catch levels as a basis for distributing catch quotas and effort quotas.
Amendment 119 removes historical catch as a basis for allocating quotas. National authorities would no longer consider historical catch levels when distributing catch and effort quotas to fishing boats. Instead, they would prioritise environmental and local economic criteria. Removing historical catch levels as a criterion would help to end the unfair arrangement that British fishers suffered under the common fisheries policy.
This new system under which quotas are distributed on the basis of environmental and local economic criteria is likely to benefit small-scale sustainable fishers who belong to the UK small fishing fleet, because smaller boats provide more job opportunities to local communities. For every fish caught, small-scale fleets create far more jobs than their larger counterparts. In 2016, they landed 11% of fish by value in the UK but employed nearly half of all fishers. They are also better for the environment.
We have already discussed the impact of destructive fishing methods, including pulse beam trawling, which cause huge damage to the UK marine environments and ecosystems. In contrast to supertrawlers and larger boats, the vast majority of boats within the small-scale fleet use passive gears, which are more environmentally friendly. By removing historical catch from the list of criteria that a national authority must consider when allocating fishing opportunities, we would send a message to smaller boats that we believe in their economic potential and recognise the positive impact of job opportunities in coastal communities and the marine environments in which such boats operate.
I am aware that some colleagues will be concerned about the legality of removing historical catch as a basis for allocating quotas, but I reassure them that a challenge to a new system of quota allocation enshrined in an Act of Parliament would be unlikely to succeed. I have been assured that the new scenario of mandating quota re-allocation in UK law would be compatible with domestic and international law.
Under this new approach, foreign-owned companies that control UK quota would have to work to keep it on the UK’s terms. They would have to fulfil the environmental and local economic criteria, demonstrating their commitment to sustainability and local employment. Our smaller fishing fleets remain the backbone of coastal communities across the country. It is time that they got their fair share of fishing opportunities.
Victoria Prentis
In Committee earlier this week, I explained that although fixed quota allocation units do not represent a permanent right to quotas, the High Court has recognised them as a property right, and it is not the Government’s intention to undermine the legal status of the existing quota regime at this stage. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 26, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
“(3A) When distributing English fishing opportunities, the Secretary of State may redistribute any fishing opportunities made available before IP completion day, and any such distribution and redistribution must be carried out according to social, environmental and local economic criteria following national and regional consultation from relevant stakeholder advisory groups, including representative groups from across the fishing fleet, scientists, and environmental groups.”
This amendment would allow the redistribution of existing fishing opportunities in England and would mean that such distribution and redistribution had to be carried out in accordance with certain criteria, following consultation.
Amendment 120 would allow the redistribution of existing English fishing opportunities. I stress that Labour’s amendments to clause 26 would not leave our largest fishing boats and those that are bigger than 10 metres in a position where they could no longer operate—far from it. We are calling for a redistribution of a small proportion of opportunities to the under-10 metre fishing fleet. Even a single-digit percentage redistribution of quotas would make a monumental difference to the lives of small fishers, who have been hit particularly hard by the covid-19 pandemic. If just 1% or 2% of the total catch was re-allocated, that could increase by 25% what small boats can catch.
As I outlined earlier, for every fish caught, a small-scale fleet creates more jobs than their larger counterparts do. Despite landing only a tenth of the fish by value, they employ nearly half of all fishers. Of course, as we discussed, they create far more jobs on land that at sea. These small fishers are the backbone of the British fishing fleet. The future prosperity of our coastal communities is fundamentally dependent on these small-scale fishers. A small redistribution of the quota, which is clearly within the Government’s gift, would not cause significant damage to large-scale fishers, but it would fundamentally transform the prospects of our small fishers and their coastal communities. It would give them a platform to invest in new gear and boats and to hire more crew.
Labour is not calling for the redistribution of the quota to happen immediately. A phrased drawdown period would ensure that fishers could build up their capacity to meet the new quota allowances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on Second Reading:
“Such rebalancing could easily be absorbed by the big foreign-owned boat operators within the current range of variation of total allowable catch”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 73.]
The amendment calls on the Secretary of State to consider the social, environmental and local economic criteria when distributing or redistributing existing English fishing opportunities, as well as to consult stakeholder advisory groups. As I mentioned in the debate on amendment 119, Labour believes that considering environmental and local economic criteria would benefit our small fishing fleet and, consequently, the seaside towns and villages they rely on. Amendment 120 asks the Government to grasp this opportunity to support our small English fishers and their communities.
Luke Pollard
I rise in support of the case that has just been laid out by my colleague the shadow fisheries Minister. There is an opportunity here to support our small boat fleet and to send a message about what type of fisheries we want to have after we leave the Brexit transition period at the end of the year. I believe the British public and those in our coastal communities where fishing has a presence want to see our small boat fleet supported in particular. That is the sentiment that comes from fishers and coastal communities in Plymouth and across the south-west and, indeed, when I visited Grimsby and Hull recently. They want to see the small boats in particular benefiting.
As the Minister knows, I am sceptical about whether more fish will appear in any negotiations, and that is why, regardless of whether more fish come or not, now or later or not at all—I hope they do, through zonal attachment rather than relative stability—the ability to redistribute even a small percentage of our current quota to the benefit of our smaller fishers could have a profound and positive impact on our coastal communities. It would support our small fishers, create more jobs and, in particular, provide an economic foundation for fishers to expand the number of boats, expand the workforce and invest in our port infrastructure.
I anticipate that the Minister will be less keen on this measure. However, the sentiment that has been articulated is sound and good and would deliver on much of the promise that many of our coastal communities want to see from a revised fisheries regime.
Victoria Prentis
I have absolutely no doubt that more fish will appear, or that we will be entitled to more fish at the end of this year. I absolutely agree with the sentiment of much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have an issue with the amendment.
The fisheries White Paper 2018 set out the Government’s policy on our existing quota—I rehearsed that point in the debate on the previous amendment. It is not our intention to undermine the legal status of the existing quota regime. We have also made it very clear, not least on Tuesday, that we will allocate additional quota differently. We will shortly consult on proposals for allocating English additional quota. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman at length when we do so.
There are some drafting issues with the amendment. For example, it is unclear what is meant by
“fishing opportunities made available before IP completion day”.
Obviously, fishing opportunities vary from year to year as stock conditions go up and down. It is unclear what is expected to be used as the baseline here. I am also concerned that the amendment seems to duplicate earlier parts of clause 26. Given that the Government have made absolutely clear that we do not intend to redistribute our existing share of FQA and that it is uncertain how the amendment would operate, I ask that it be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 26, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
“(3A) When distributing catch quotas for use by fishing boats, the national fisheries authorities may make provision for the pooling of catch quotas by two or more boats.
(3B) Before making provision for the pooling of catch quotas under subsection (3A), the national fisheries authorities must be satisfied that any pooling will lead to a reduction in the discard of catch, including bycatch.”.
This amendment would allow the national fisheries authorities to enable catch quota to be pooled by two or more boats in cases where doing so would avoid discards.
This probing amendment is intended to investigate the Government’s plans to deal with discards and bycatch. We know that in mixed fisheries in particular, there is the real problem of small boats not having a quota for the fish they are catching because of their inability to target species in a 100% accurate manner. The amendment argues for a greater pooling of an element of quota to avoid fishers getting into trouble, through no fault of their own, despite best efforts to avoid bycatch when catching species they have neither quota for nor the ability to discard over the side or land in an economic manner. It is intended not as the preferred solution but rather as an opportunity for the Minister to set out the options, because I am concerned that the current discards regime, introduced for all the right reasons with a huge amount of public support, does not support our fishers in achieving the right outcomes in support of their businesses or the regime’s intended environmental objectives.
I expect the Minister to take much issue with the wording of the amendment. I am less fussed about its wording and more fussed about the clarity of where she intends to take discard policy in the future.
Victoria Prentis
I am always fussed about the wording of amendments, but I would like to emphasise the important point that the Government remain fully committed to managing our stocks of fish sustainably and indeed to ending the wasteful practice of discarding.
Now that we have left the EU, we will develop a discards policy more tailored to us. It will have an emphasis on reducing the level of unintentional and unwanted bycatch through sustainable and selective fishing. The amendment is unnecessary because we already use quota pools in the way the amendment sets out. Most quota in England is managed by producer organisations. The exact management arrangements vary, but many do choose to operate with a quota pool, as set out in the amendment. The rest of the English fleet, which includes most of the smaller inshore vessels, fish from one of two quota pools that are managed by the MMO.
Luke Pollard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 26, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
‘(c) access for the purpose of recreational fishing, including by means of boats chartered for that purpose, to increased stock levels of recovering species.’.
This amendment would add access by recreational fishing to increased stock levels of recovering species to the list of things that national fisheries authorities must seek to incentivise when distributing catch quotas and effort quotas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 23, line 44, at end insert—
‘(1A) Prior to giving financial assistance under subsection (1)(i), the Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on how best to promote sustainable public access to recreational fishing opportunities, taking socioeconomic factors into account.
(1B) The consultation in subsection (1A) must include consideration of the use of boats that are chartered for recreational fishing.’.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on recreational fishing prior to providing financial assistance.
New clause 2—Recreational fishing—
‘(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the Secretary of State to consult with any person considered appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons representing the practice of recreational fishing, including those who charter boats for the purpose of recreational fishing.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act have—
(a) promoted recreational fishing, and
(b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of recreational fishing.
(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no more than 12 months after this section comes into force.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 81and 82 and new clause 2 are all about recreational fishing. Amendment 82 recognises the importance of recreational fishing to local economies across the UK and would call on national fisheries authorities to add access to recreational fishing to increase stock levels of recovering fish species in the distribution of catch and effort quotas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport outlined on Second Reading, recreational fishing matters to people’s identities and it now competes economically with commercial fishing in GDP terms. In oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee for the previous iteration of the Bill, Dr Carl O’Brien said:
“In future, we need to have a better understanding of recreational fishing. We cannot ignore it, but we have to come up with a policy where you balance commercial and recreational anglers”
and that
“regardless of whether they are selling their catch, they are competing with a commercial fishery…for the western Baltic cod, the catches of the recreational anglers are far in excess of the commercial fleet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 117, Q228.]
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to consider the interests of the recreational fishing fleet alongside commercial fishing interests when distributing extra quota that has come about through the efforts to restore fish stock. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing and to include representatives of the recreational fishing industry when conducting a consultation under any of the provisions of the Bill.
As I mentioned, recreational fishing makes a huge contribution to local economies across the UK. It is an incredibly popular activity enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people. Research recently published from surveys of sea anglers during 2016 and 2017 shows that about 800,000—1.6% of UK adults—went sea angling at least once a year, fishing for a total of 7 million days. Anglers spend on average more than £1,000 a year on their sport, resulting in sea angling having a total economic impact of between £1.5 billion and £2 billion. Sea angling supports about 15,000 jobs in the UK. It is important that we give the public and the industry an opportunity to have their say. Recreational angling and its contribution to coastal communities deserves more recognition in the Bill.
New clause 2 would ensure that the Bill supports our recreational industry. In a Committee evidence session on the previous iteration of the Bill, the Angling Trust argued that one of the great failures of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The new clause tries to correct that failure. As we take back control of our waters, we could do right by our sea anglers. We could recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user of, and a legitimate stakeholder in, fishing.
Amendment 81 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on recreational fishing before providing financial assistance. Clause 35 creates new powers for the Secretary of State to make grants or loans to the fishing and aquaculture industries. Labour welcomes the inclusion in the Bill of recreational fishing among the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State may give assistance. Our amendment would bring the Bill in line with new clause 2 and ensure that consultation on recreational fishing takes place prior to the provision of financial assistance.
Sustainable public access to recreational fishing should be promoted. I will not repeat the points that I have already made about the importance of the recreational fishing sector to coastal communities and sustainable fisheries management. However, I urge the Minister to support our amendments and new clause on recreational fishing, to recognise the good that the industry does for our country and ensure that it thrives in the future.
Victoria Prentis
DEFRA absolutely recognises the benefits of recreational fishing to the nation’s health and economy; I know you do too, Sir Charles. I myself enjoy sea angling, as do other members of my family.
However, I will note at the beginning of this discussion that references to “fish activities” include both commercial and recreational fishing in this iteration of the Bill. So, it is fair to say that the Bill has been improved and it is good to see those activities being viewed as equal partners in what we are trying to do.
Quota is one of several possible mechanisms that could be explored in order to increase recreational anglers’ access to fish; we talked about that earlier. Other mechanisms could include technical measures, through which recreational fishers saw a significant increase in their access to sea bass between 2019 and 2020. We can also enable anglers and fishermen to play a greater role in scientific research, as we also discussed earlier, and that has been proposed with regard to bluefin tuna.
Clause 26 relates generally to the distribution of fishing opportunities. It is not just about the distribution of quota to commercial boats. It already ensures that environmental, social and economic factors are considered. On that basis, I believe that the current wording of clause 26, combined with the other work that we are doing on recreational access to fish, is sufficient to meet the hon. Lady’s objectives.
Turning to amendment 81, DEFRA’s recreational sea fishing forum brings together the recreational sector, regulators and policy makers to shape sea fishing policy. This forum met for the third time two days ago and it is providing a really useful mechanism for those in the sector to share their ideas and evidence.
DEFRA is also committed to engaging with stakeholders on the design and implementation of any future grant scheme, to ensure that we can best meet domestic priorities as well as Government objectives. On that basis, I do not think that it is necessary to include the express consultation requirement when consulting on future grant schemes.
Turning to new clause 2, by default in the Bill all provisions apply to recreational fishing as well as to commercial fishing, unless it is explicitly specified other- wise. Given the importance of recreational fishing, the Government will include policies on recreational fishing in the joint fisheries statement. Of course, fisheries management plans can take recreational fishing into account, where appropriate.
On that basis, I believe that we have sufficient existing provisions in the Bill and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I have heard what the Minister says. However, it is really important that we make sure that recreational fishing is seen as a valid and equal stakeholder. So I will not withdraw the amendment and I will press for a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause was amended in the other place to set out the criteria for distributing UK fishing opportunities in the Bill, rather than by reference to retained EU law. The wording of the provision has been updated slightly to reflect UK drafting style, but the provision includes the same requirement for transparent and objective criteria that take into account environmental, social and economic factors.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Reservation of English fishing opportunities for new entrants and boats under 10 metres
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
As with many of the amendments made in the other place, the Government agree with the intention behind the clause, but disagree with the manner in which that intention is proposed to be delivered, therefore I seek for the clause not to stand part of the Bill.
The clause refers to new entrants, but it is not clear exactly what that means. A new entrant could refer to a new fishing boat owner, a new skipper or a new crew on board an existing boat, and those different groups may have different needs on joining the industry. New crews on fishing boats do not need any quota, but might need some training. Many under-10 metre vessels target non-quota stock such as shellfish, rather than quota species, so of course they will not need quota either. The lack of clarity about the scope of the clause makes it difficult to establish a baseline for deciding how much quota to give new entrants and, indeed, what data we need to collect and analyse.
Secondly, the clause does not consider the wider issues affecting new entrants. For example, to fish commercially against UK quota, a new entrant needs a British-registered fishing boat and a licence, of which there are a fixed number. Fishing requires a significant capital investment before someone can even go to sea; the cost of an average under-10 metre boat is significant. Reserving a proportion of quota for new entrants does not address that issue. No time limit has been set for how long someone would be classified as a new entrant, which also presents challenges about whether vessels would ever lose access to the reserve quota, how long before that happened and what quota they would then fish against if was removed.
The Government and Seafish are working in partnership with a range of training partners to offer apprenticeships across the UK on a range of subjects relevant to the seafood industry and maritime occupations. Apprenticeships and vocational qualifications in shellfish and fish processing are available, as are introductory courses on working in the commercial fishing industry, which I am pleased to say include mandatory training on safety at sea.
It is our intention to consult on using some of the additional quota that I am convinced is coming to us to provide increased fishing opportunities for under-10 metre vessels. That is absolutely an intention we share and feel passionately about. There will be more benefits for our fishing ports and coastal communities, but I am afraid, because of the drafting difficulties, I cannot support the clause.
Stephanie Peacock
Labour opposes the Minister’s proposal to remove clause 27, which was passed in the other place. We have not moved our amendments to the clause, given the Government’s intention to remove it, but we had hoped to encourage them and the Secretary of State to consider the impact on communities with high unemployment and on small and medium-sized enterprises when deciding fishing opportunities under clause 24 of the Bill.
We support the campaign by the Blue Marine Foundation, whose executive director said:
“The distribution of quota is long overdue for reform; it was a botched privatisation which is unfair to the majority of fishermen, who fish inshore, and has perverse environmental consequences. Now it must be unpicked.”
For too long the UK fishing quota has been dominated by huge, often foreign-owned, vessels that land their catch abroad. In May, a report by the BBC found that £160 million-worth of English quota is in the hands of vessels owned by companies based in Iceland, Spain and the Netherlands. That is more than half of the value of the English quota. The status quo needs to be changed to give smaller boats the lion’s share of the quota, and we do not need new powers to affect real change for our coastal communities. The Government have always had the power to redistribute share of the UK’s quota, but have chosen not to, despite small vessel owners facing severe financial hardship over the years.
Some 50% of the English quota is held by companies based overseas. At the same time, the small-scale fleet holds only 6%. It is a damning fact that the five largest quota holders control more than a third of the UK fishing quota. Four of them can be found on the Sunday Times rich list. It is clear that the current distribution of fishing opportunities is outdated and unfair. We should take this opportunity and the powers that we have to ensure that it is our small fishers and the UK coastal communities that benefit. If the Minister is seeking to remove the clause, how do the Government intend to deal with such inequality and give smaller fishers a fairer share of quota? The fishers who would benefit from a redistribution were some of the loudest voices during the Brexit referendum, who have long felt that their communities have been ignored. They are also the ones that have been hardest hit by the covid-19 pandemic. Many could not leave port, but their fixed costs remained the same. For some, the Government covid-19 grant came too late, and for many it was not enough to cover maintenance of their boats and port fees.
Our small fishing fleet deserves support from the Government. There has been a lot of talk about how leaving the EU is an opportunity for the UK to secure a fairer share of fishing opportunities for our own fleets. I ask that that principle of fairness is extended within our own fleets. As has already been mentioned, it would not only benefit the owners of under-10 boats, but our coastal communities, as for every fish caught the small-scale fleet creates more jobs than larger boats do. I firmly believe our UK small-scale fleet has the potential to lead the way towards the creation of a greener economy that is not only good for the environment, but creates more jobs at home.
Right now, the barriers for new entrants into the sector, and for small fishers struggling to make a living, are too high. Clause 27 would help to rejuvenate our fishing sector, encouraging more small fishers to join the industry, which, admittedly, has a relatively older profile than others, and would create more opportunities for people with exciting ideas about how to make UK fishing more sustainable, innovative and profitable. The Bill has the potential to become a vehicle for a fair redistribution of quota allocations, which would be transformational for many of England’s small fishers and their communities. Are the Government creating a system that would encourage new entrants into the sector, and redistributing fishing opportunities to the under-10 metre fleet to the benefit of not only small fishers but the communities they rely on?
I also want to probe the Minister and ask her to explain in greater detail what she has said about the proportion of quota that is already guaranteed to the under-10 metre fleet. Will the Government commit to reviewing the current allocation of quota and from here on consider the case for increasing allocations of fishing opportunities to the under-10 metre fleet on a yearly basis?
Last week the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation gifted an extra quota to the under-10 metre fleet. This was referenced on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who said the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs supported this distribution to help keep the Northern Irish fleet economically viable. Will the Minister consider supporting a similar allocation to English fishers who own under-10 metre boats to help them get back on their feet after the past year of uncertainty?
The clause seeks to create a better, fairer framework of quota allocation. Better quota decisions will support our fishing industry, widening employment and making fishing an attractive career to young people. Simply put, in supporting our small fishers, we will support our coastal communities. This is a once in a generation chance to shape our fishing industry for the better. Labour Members will therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove clause 27.
Luke Pollard
I rise in support of this argument and also to pick up on something that the Minister said in her remarks. She argued that it is expensive to invest in new boats and used that as a reason against the Bill. She argued against the amendment, and then went on to argue that she expects more fish. She cannot have it both ways. She is arguing in support of more quota for under-10s, but that is the intention behind the clause. It gives more quota, which is the ability for fishers to invest in their new fleet. Rather than it being a reason not to invest, it actually supports the smaller fleet.
Investing in our small boats is delivering on the promise that was made to our coastal communities. I hope the Minister can clarify the point about more quota for the under-10s, whether via this clause or via hopes of more fish in the future. I hope she will find ways of supporting the under-10 fleet to invest in new gear, training and boats.
Victoria Prentis
I am not sure I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought, but I hope I can reassure him and answer some of the questions of the hon. Member for Barnsley East. In England, no decisions have yet been taken about how to allocate any additional fishing opportunities, but consideration will certainly be given to whether that can be used to assist new entrants to enter the profession. The point that I made about fishing vessels was that the boats themselves are very expensive and are a significant barrier to new fishermen coming through.
I said earlier that we feel that a minimum quota allocation would not be the best approach to alleviate the challenges faced by new entrants. I also said that new entrants might not need quota, depending on what they intend to fish. Shellfish, for example, which is a very profitable species, is non-quota. I am concerned that minimum quota could cause other unintended problems. Setting a blanket minimum quota means that other fishers will receive less than they currently do.
We are extremely keen to safeguard the industry’s future by encouraging new entrants. We will be looking carefully at how we can best work with the industry to encourage that as part of our work to reform our fisheries management regime as the transition period comes to an end.
The Government recognise the importance of the under-10 fleet. Since 2012, quota that has not been fished, leased, gifted or swapped by producer organisations has been realigned, and we have managed to deliver a 13% increase in quota for the under-10 fleet. As I said earlier, a significant proportion of the catch caught by the sector is made up of non-quota species such as lobster and crabs. We are very keen to support industry initiatives to help that fleet, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House to do that in the future.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Duties to ensure fishing opportunities not exceeded
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 28, page 18, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3A) The national fisheries authorities must publish, on at least an annual basis, a comparison of the number of each species of sea fish caught and—
(a) the catch quota for that species for that year, and
(b) the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) reference point for that species for that year.
(3B) The publication under subsection (3A) must, where the number of sea fish caught in a calendar year has exceeded the figures in paragraphs (3A)(a) or (3A)(b), note the impact on fish stocks that exceeding that figure is thought to have had.”
This amendment would require the publication of the quantity of fish caught, by species, to enable the impact on the sustainability of fish stocks to be assessed.
Amendment 125 would require fisheries authorities to publish annually data on the state of fish stocks. As hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have often said, the deficiencies in data about our UK fish stocks must be improved. A lack of information results in the over-setting of quota limits, which directly leads to over-fishing. That harms not just our marine ecosystems but the future prosperity and survival of our UK fishing industry. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State shares my concerns about that and shares our aspiration to ensure that the deficiencies in our data are addressed.
Annually publishing the data on the state of fish stocks would mean that we are better able to ensure the effective monitoring of the progress being made in addressing those deficiencies. That would inform and enable greater scrutiny of decisions. We would be better able to publicly assess the sustainability of our fish stocks and understand the effect that they are having on each species and what that means for our marine environment and coastal communities. As we discussed earlier, we should not fear greater transparency or scrutiny. That would lead to greater progress and better decisions about our fisheries management, which will only benefit our fishers and their communities.
In his speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the UK is
“a world leader in promoting sustainable fisheries”
and that we
“can show the world that a better approach can deliver more balance, profitable fisheries and an enhanced marine environment.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 70.]
If we are to demonstrate the success of the UK fisheries management regime, it must be done in a format that allows for careful scrutiny and public debate, to celebrate where we succeed and to challenge and change where things should be improved.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I am going to behave like a Government lawyer again and say the intent behind the amendment is absolutely clear, but the wording is ambiguous. It is not clear what sort of comparison is expected. The amendment focuses on consideration of species, but this does not make sense where different stocks of the same species are managed separately in different sea basins.
The MMO publishes the UK sea fisheries annual statistics report, which provides detailed information on our fisheries, including data on catches, quota uptake and value. The ICES publishes its annual advice on stocks, including advice on sustainable harvest rates. The advice indicates the status of stocks, taking into account previous harvesting. The Government routinely report on the outcome of annual fisheries negotiations, which includes providing figures for the number of TACs set at or below their maximum sustainable yield, and this is absolutely something that I undertake to continue to do in the future.
Our fisheries management plans will have indicators to assess their performance, and every three years the joint fisheries statement will report on how our plans have been implemented and how the stocks have been affected. The Government’s intention is to provide the necessary information through the new and existing mechanisms, so that everybody is clear about how we are getting on with delivering sustainable fisheries. I therefore say that the amendment is unnecessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I think we are going to go from a trot to a canter now.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Even the Whip on the Treasury Bench is beginning to smile, so we are approaching a denouement.
Clauses 31 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Adjourned till Tuesday 15 September at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
FB01 National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
FB02 Angling Trust
FB03 Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT)
FB04 South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen Ltd
FB05 Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO) and Sea Source
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 10th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 September 2020 - (10 Sep 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Morning. Before we begin, I will make the usual preliminary points. I ask hon. Members to respect the social distancing guidance and to switch to silent—or switch off—their phones and electronic devices. I remind Members that Mr Speaker does not allow tea or coffee to be consumed in Committee. If possible, please email your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk for our Hansard colleagues.
We will have a short procedural motion this morning, which I hope will be very straightforward, to allow the publication of written evidence—copies are available if Members want them.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe, a few people have contacted me to inquire about why they cannot watch proceedings, because no visuals are being broadcast. I know that with social distancing, there is a good reason, but for the benefit of those who are listening but not watching, could you explain why they are getting an audio feed alone, rather than a visual feed?
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Obviously, given that we have such a telegenic cast, it is a severe blow to me as well. The answer—as you rightly point out, Mr Pollard—is that we are in a slightly larger room because of the social distancing rules, and the room does not have camera facilities. It is that straightforward.
Resolved,
That subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The Chair
We now move to line by line consideration of the Bill. As usual, the selection list for the sitting is available in the room. Amendments on similar issues are generally grouped. Please note that decisions on amendments do not necessarily take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
Clause 12
Access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 12, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) The master, the owner and the charterer (if any) are not each guilty of an offence if a fishing boat contravenes subsection (1) or (2) as a result of—
(a) danger to life or property, or
(b) any other reason prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.”
This amendment makes clear that a foreign fishing boat is not committing an offence if it enters or remains in British waters due to conditions presenting a danger to life or property.
Luke Pollard
This is a probing amendment. I want fisheries to be sustainable, as we discussed on Tuesday, but I also want them to be safe for British fishers, foreign fishers and all those in our waters. We have tabled the amendment to hear from the Minister what would happen in scenarios in which a foreign fishing boat is in trouble near our waters, and the only way for them seek help or to address their concerns is to enter our waters, where they may not normally have a licence to operate.
I hope that the Minister will say that under our international commitments to safety on the high seas, those boats would receive aid and, because of the close working relationship that I hope we will have with our European neighbours, we will be able to co-ordinate rescue efforts if required, and so the authorities will not need to prosecute in those circumstances. Furthermore—as the Minister will know from her legal past—should any prosecution take place for such a scenario, which I doubt it would, the public interest test to evaluate whether there were a case would probably not be passed if the vessel were genuinely seeking help.
Moreover, the Bill must specify that if a foreign fishing vessel enters UK fishing waters for the purpose of fishing, but erroneously claims that it is because they are in distress, they would be committing an offence in that circumstance as they would not have a licence to operate in our waters, and could face prosecution. This is a probing amendment, tabled mainly to enable the Minister to clarify that scenario on the record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is nice to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr McCabe. It is always a pleasure to set out this situation, which already exists under the law in this important area. We all agree that the safety of fishermen and seafarers is critical. The amendment is not necessary, as the hon. Gentleman possibly surmised.
The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 already contains special provisions for vessels in distress, allowing any UK or foreign vessel that is wrecked, stranded or in distress in any place on or near the coast of the UK, or in any tidal water within UK waters, to receive assistance, quite rightly. Articles 17 and 18 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea allow the right of innocent passage, applying to all ships of all states in territorial seas, an exclusive economic zone or the median line. For example, in poor weather, foreign vessels can stop fishing and shelter behind a headland to escape the worst of the storm. I understand from the Marine Management Organisation that that happens fairly often, particularly in the east and south-west.
Vessels are allowed safe navigation and passage, and we already allow shelter in our waters and ports so that foreign vessel owners can deal with, for example, injuries, repairs to their vessels, replenishing their provisions or refuelling. Foreign vessels can also safely transit through our waters to reach more distant fishing grounds. None of that will change. Any further exceptions will be agreed in international arrangements and set out in vessel licensing conditions. This is already provided for in subsection (1) of the clause, so I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarifying that situation, and on the basis of that clarity, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Regulation of foreign fishing boats
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause introduces schedule 2, which extends to foreign vessels a wide range of secondary legislation made by the UK Government and, at their request, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Irish Department. It will make it clear that foreign fishing boats are bound by the same regulations as UK fishing boats. Under the common fisheries policy, the UK was prevented in most cases from applying its local rules to vessels from other EU member states. The clause and schedule 2 seek to rectify that, ensuring a fairer approach to foreign vessels that—subject to negotiations, of course—are granted access to fish in UK waters.
Luke Pollard
The set of amendments to the clause and the schedule relate an awful lot to the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989. There will be some concern, after only a cursory glance at the amendments and the schedule, that the Government are permitting the taking of undersized crabs, which would obviously be contrary to the principles of sustainability that we have spoken about. I will be grateful if the Minister sets out the intent behind the undersized velvet crabs amendments in a wee bit more detail.
Victoria Prentis
Mr McCabe, would you like me to deal with this now or when we deal with the amendments?
The Chair
It is probably better to deal with it when we get to the amendments.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Regulation of Foreigh Fishing Boats
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 11, in schedule 2, page 42, line 38, leave out from “crabs)”, to end of line 1 on page 43 and insert
“, in paragraph (2), after “foreign fishing boats” insert “of sea fish caught in waters lying outside British fishery limits”.”
This amendment exempts foreign vessels from restrictions in the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 in relation to fish caught outside British fishery limits.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 12 to 16, 18, 22 and 23.
Victoria Prentis
These are very technical amendments, and it is difficult to get our order and our arguments in the same place. Amendments 11 to 16 make changes to paragraph (2) of schedule 2, which amends the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 and indeed extends it to foreign vessels, in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The amendments remove unnecessary references to Scottish fishing boats, so that the order applies effectively to Northern Ireland. The amendments also ensure that the restrictions in the order do not apply to foreign vessels when they catch fish outside British fishery limits.
Similarly, amendment 18 exempts foreign vessels from restrictions in the Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order 2000 in relation to fish caught outside British fishery limits. Amendments 22 and 23 just remove some superfluous words in relation to that. I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. For the sake of clarity, the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 was not previously on my reading list; however, it was yesterday. I am grateful to those people who got in touch asking whether this would put further pressure on those species. From my understanding of what the Minister has just said, it does not relate to any further risk to the stock levels; it relates only to access. I am grateful for what she has said on that.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendments made: 12, in schedule 2, page 43, line 2, leave out, from “crabs)” to end of line 4 and insert
“, in paragraph (2), after ‘foreign fishing boats’ insert ‘and were caught in waters lying outside British fishery limits’.”
This amendment exempts foreign vessels from restrictions in the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 in relation to fish caught outside British fishery limits.
Amendment 13, in schedule 2, page 43, line 13, leave out “Scottish or”.
This amendment removes Scottish fishing boats from the scope of article 4 of the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 (which imposes a minimum size for carriage of velvet crabs in the English zone).
Amendment 14, in schedule 2, page 43, line 13, leave out “or a foreign vessel”.
This amendment exempts foreign vessels from restrictions in the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 in relation to fish caught outside British fishery limits.
Amendment 15, in schedule 2, page 43, line 16, at end insert—
“(4) A foreign vessel is prohibited from carrying in the English zone velvet crab that were caught in waters lying within British fishery limits and are below the minimum size mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).”
This amendment exempts foreign vessels from restrictions in the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 in relation to fish caught outside British fishery limits.
Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 43, line 23, leave out “Scottish or”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment removes Scottish fishing boats from the scope of article 4 of the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 (which imposes a minimum size for carriage of velvet crabs in the English zone).
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 43, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) After article 4 insert—
‘Fishing by Faroe Islands-licensed foreign vessels
4A (1) Nothing in article 2, 3 or 4 applies in relation to fish that were caught by a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign vessel in waters lying within the Special Area unless, at the time they were caught, the vessel was included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section 16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.
(2) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
‘Faroe Islands-licensed’;
‘the Special Area’.”
This amendment exempts foreign vessels from certain provisions of the Undersized Velvet Crabs Order 1989 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 19 to 21, 24 to 26, 3 and 4.
Victoria Prentis
These amendments are necessary to ensure that we comply with the provisions of the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999. The treaty concerns maritime delimitation between the UK and the Faroe Islands. The 1999 agreement, or for the purposes of the Bill the Faroe Islands treaty, provides for a special area in the UK exclusive economic zone, exclusively in Scottish waters, over which both parties exercise jurisdiction for fisheries management purposes. A bespoke approach is required to manage that shared area in the right way.
The amendments provide the legal framework for who is able to regulate fishing in that special area from 1 January. They provide the Faroese authorities with the ability to license foreign vessels in that area, as well as providing the option for the appropriate UK licensing authority to license foreign vessels if that is required. Were the amendments not made, we would not be able to implement the Faroe Islands treaty, which might put us in breach of our international obligations. The amendments to schedule 2 exempt vessels licensed by the Faroe Islands fishing in a special area from some secondary legislation that is applicable in Scottish waters.
This is a technical area. We make the amendments in the knowledge that we have a very positive relationship with the Faroe Islands on fisheries management, and we remain committed to collectively improving the way the sea is managed and governed. Indeed, it is through our working on a new future fisheries agreement with the Faroe Islands throughout this year that we have been able to agree the approach to this issue.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend further agree that the Faroe Islands are an exemplar of how to maintain a sustainable fishery, using technology such as long lining, for example?
Victoria Prentis
I am very happy to agree with the former fisheries Minister on this point. I know he did a great deal of work with the Faroe Islands, and we have had a very constructive working relationship with them throughout the course of this year. The issue has now been resolved properly, as it should be, in the Bill.
International negotiations are reserved but implementing international agreements, for example by licensing fishing boats, is a devolved matter, so this is a complex area to legislate for. We have worked very closely with our Scottish Government colleagues, who I would like to thank, and colleagues across Government, to come to an agreed approach that respects both reserved and devolved competences. I am grateful that Scottish Ministers were prepared to and will play an active role in the delivery of this amendment. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
I welcome the Government legislating to comply with international treaties, which I am sure the Minister will agree with—I know she is a fond supporter of the rule of law. Until very recently, I did not think that complying with international law or international treaties was a point of contention in this House, but perhaps I am just being old-fashioned in that respect.
We support the amendments to comply with the 1999 agreement with Denmark and the Faroe Islands—that was something else I did not expect to have on my reading list last night, but none the less a thrilling treaty to have a read of. We think there should be no question when it comes to complying with international law, so we support the amendments, but I would like to press the Minister slightly on one aspect.
The Minister will know that when the 200-metre EEZ became the norm, the UK and Denmark on behalf of the Faroes sought to delimit their maritime zones. However, they disagreed at the time on the method and that produced areas of overlap. Those grey areas or special zones, which the Minister referred to in her remarks, are basically a no man’s water subject to special provisions.
For fishing in the special zones, each country can fish and regulate its own vessels. As the Faroes are not in the EU, the measure has not had much impact to date. However, it does now, potentially. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, we are seeing an increase in RIG activity—that is, Russia, Iceland and Greenland—in the areas around the Faroe Islands and the surrounding high seas. The RIG countries are not signatories to the sharing of coastal states agreements, in particular the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer some clarity on whether the measure only applies to Faroese boats and not those from Russia, Iceland and Greenland—countries that the Faroe Islands may grant permissions to fish. How does that apply to the approach the Government are taking?
The stocks in this zone are big business and I am anxious to ensure that we are not leaving a back door here for fishing in this joint area to become over-exploited by others under Faroese permissions. It is of particular importance that we safeguard our distant water fleets. I do not want to see British fishers undermined in this way. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out some clarity, in particular in relation to RIG activity.
Victoria Prentis
This is a highly technical area, and while the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention my legal background, I am not sure that I am able to provide him with a complete answer now. I am going to try, but I would like to caveat that, as all experienced lawyers would, with the fact that I will write to him afterwards if I am found to have been wrong.
It is interesting that this special area is quite a unique legal entity. The conflict with the licensing provisions already in the Bill had not come to light until it got to the point of negotiations with the Faroe Islands, when it became clear that there might be some points of conflict.
The 1999 treaty permits either party to license foreign vessels, so both the Faroe Islands and the UK authorities —in this case, the Scottish Government—are able to do that. I think that probably answers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. That certainly does not mean that there are no rules in this area of the sea. Many of the licence conditions will be very similar for whichever party issues the licence, and the UK will of course still exercise standard controls and enforcement in the area. Both parties already have a commitment in the 1999 treaty, I believe, to co-operate on marine protection measures, which will further preserve this area. I feel that that is probably an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but if there is more to say, I will say it to him in writing.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that this is a very difficult area. My key concern is about overfishing. From what I gather from the Minister, because the UK and Faroese fisheries authorities will be issuing licences, that would include RIG activity within those waters. Is her understanding that there is sufficient data transfer between those two licences and a scientific basis to ensure that those waters are being fished sustainably?
Victoria Prentis
That is what I believe to be the case, but I want to check that. This special marine area is a fascinating area of law. I cannot pretend that I know all the answers at the moment, so I will get back to the hon. Gentleman if I have told him the wrong thing. Otherwise, we will leave it as stated.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendments made: 18, in schedule 2, page 44, line 19, leave out from “prohibition)” to end of line 20 and insert—
(a) in paragraph (1) omit “wherever caught”;
(b) in paragraph (2), after “applies” insert “(wherever caught)”;
(c) after paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) The landing in England or Northern Ireland from a foreign fishing boat of any sea fish to which this article applies that were caught in waters lying within British fishery limits is prohibited.””
This amendment exempts foreign vessels from restrictions in the Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order 2000 in relation to fish caught outside British fishery limits.
Amendment 19, in schedule 2, page 44, line 22, at end insert—
‘(4A) After article 4A insert—
“Fishing by Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boats
4B (1) Nothing in article 3(2) or 4A(1) (fishing prohibition) applies in relation to fishing at any time by a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area unless, at that time, the fishing boat was included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section 16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.
(2) Nothing in article 4(3) (landing prohibition) applies in relation to fish that were caught by a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area unless, at the time they were caught, the fishing boat was included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section 16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.
(3) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
“Faroe Islands-licensed”;
“the Special Area”.”
This amendment exempts foreign fishing boats from certain provisions of the Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order 2000 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Amendment 20, in schedule 2, page 44, line 36, at end insert—
‘(3A) After article 4 insert—
“Fishing by Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boats
4A (1) Nothing in article 4 (landing prohibition) applies in relation to fish that were caught by a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area unless, at the time they were caught, the fishing boat was included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section 16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.
(2) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
“Faroe Islands-licensed”;
“the Special Area”.”
This amendment exempts foreign fishing boats from certain provisions of the Undersized Edible Crabs Order 2000 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Amendment 21, in schedule 2, page 45, line 13, at end insert—
‘(2A) In article 3, in paragraph (3), at the end of sub-paragraph (c) insert “; or
(d) carried in, or used by, a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat for the purpose of fishing in waters lying within the Special Area unless the fishing boat is, at the time it is so carried or used, included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.”
(2B) In article 3, after paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
“Faroe Islands-licensed”;
“the Special Area”.”
This amendment exempts foreign fishing boats from certain provisions of the Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and other Fishing Gear) Order 2001 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Amendment 22, in schedule 2, page 45, line 16, leave out “in relation to”
This is a minor amendment removing superfluous wording.
Amendment 23, in schedule 2, page 45, line 19, leave out “in relation to”
This is a minor amendment removing superfluous wording.
Amendment 24, in schedule 2, page 45, line 26, at end insert—
‘(2A) In article 3, in paragraph (2), at the end of sub-paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) to fishing at any time by a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area unless the fishing boat is, at that time, included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.”
(2B) In article 3, after paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
“Faroe Islands-licensed”;
“the Special Area”.”
This amendment exempts foreign fishing boats from certain provisions of the Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls Order 2001 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Amendment 25, in schedule 2, page 46, line 11, at end insert “, or
(d) a foreign fishing boat outside British fishery limits.
‘(4) The prohibition in this article does not apply in relation to a net carried in, or deployed by, a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat for the purpose of fishing in waters lying within the Special Area unless the fishing boat is, at the time it is so carried or deployed, included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section 16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.
(5) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
“Faroe Islands-licensed”;
“the Special Area”.”
This amendment exempts foreign fishing boats from certain provisions of the Shrimp Fishing Nets Order 2002 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands. The amendment also clarifies that the Order only applies to foreign fishing boats when they are within British fishery limits.
Amendment 26, in schedule 2,page 46, line 34, at end insert—
‘(2A) In article 3, in paragraph (2), at the end of sub-paragraph (c) insert “, or
(d) to fishing at any time by a Faroe Islands-licensed foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area unless the fishing boat is, at that time, included in the list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of section16(2A) of the Fisheries Act 2020.”
(2B) In article 3, after paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) In this article the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 16 of the Fisheries Act 2020—
“Faroe Islands-licensed”;
“the Special Area”.” —(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment exempts foreign fishing boats from certain provisions of the Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls Order 2003 where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. This is in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This schedule amends a wide range of secondary legislation, covering issues such as prohibitions on fishing at certain times of the year, rules on gears that may be used in certain fisheries, and a prohibition on catches of certain species that currently applies only to UK vessels. The purpose of the schedule is to amend the relevant secondary legislation so that it will, in the future, apply to all vessels fishing in UK waters regardless of nationality. That should ensure an equitable approach towards our treatment of foreign vessels, if access is negotiated, of course. Extending these statutory instruments will mean foreign vessels will be bound by the same sustainability regulations as UK boats for the first time. That is a major win for this Bill. At the Welsh Government’s request, the schedule also includes an equivalent amendment to secondary legislation made by them.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 14
British fishing boats required to be licensed
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause sets out the conditions under which British fishing boats are prohibited from fishing anywhere without a licence except for very special exemptions. It consolidates existing provisions in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The Secretary of State may make regulations to add, remove or vary the exceptions listed in this section. Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department must consent prior to any such regulations being made. If British fishing boats carry out unexempted fishing activities under this clause without a licence, the owner, charter and master will be guilty of an offence.
Luke Pollard
I have a simple question for the Minister. I think that many fishers would welcome clarification, especially in relation to later amendments about electronic licences, of what the licence is. Can it be an electronic licence, or does it need to be held in hard copy on a fishing boat?
The pre-covid regulations required a hard copy to be held on board a fishing boat while it was at sea. However, the covid regulations published by the Department made it an electronic one. Presumably for consistency with other covid-related regulations that requirement will be removed once the pandemic is over, creating a distinction between the holding of a hard or electronic copy.
Clearly, there is a subtle difference between a bit of paper or an electronic file on an email server. Particularly with reference to enforcement activities, what definition is the Minister using of the form of the licence?
Victoria Prentis
Do you know, Mr McCabe, I do not think that is covered in the Bill. What I do know is that the licence must name the fishing vessel to which it is attached, and is granted to the boat’s owner or charterer. I do not know that we need to specify in legislation whether it needs to be in hard copy or electronic form. As to what is probably the best way to deal with it, clearly covid exemptions still apply and we do not know what trajectory we are on with the pandemic at the moment, so I think we should carry on considering the Fisheries Bill and take the conversation elsewhere and deal with it in the context of the pandemic, if that is acceptable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Power to grant licences in respect of British fishing boats
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I note that the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—not an organisation that I always agree with about its fishing lobbying, although I respect the energy and enthusiasm with which it pursues its purposes—puts forward some questions about the different classifications of boats in its brief, which I am sure the Minister and her officials have seen.
The NFFO is concerned that the clause gives powers to the Marine Management Organisation to grant licences for
“any other British fishing boat”.
The clause gives the power to grant a licence to Scottish Ministers in respect of a Scottish fishing boat, Welsh Ministers in respect of a Welsh fishing boat, and the Northern Ireland Department in respect of a Northern Ireland fishing boat. However, for any other British fishing boat the MMO has the power to grant a licence. My question is about the imbalance of the wording about the remits of the MMO and the devolved Administrations.
I understand that the MMO grants licences to English fishing boats, but I appreciate that the Minister and the Bill are at pains to avoid saying “English fishing boats”. Is it, however, to be understood that, for the purpose of the provision, a “British fishing boat” is an English fishing boat rather than a British fishing boat that may also simultaneously include a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish fishing boat? I think that the NFFO would be grateful for clarity on that from the Minister.
Victoria Prentis
It is no problem at all. We hoped the clause clarified the existing law and it reflects in fact the status quo. Each UK fisheries administration licences its own boats, wherever it is they actually fish. The Bill consolidates legislation that has been in force since 1967 and amended many times, not just at UK level but at devolved level. With agreement from the devolved Administrations, the provisions in the Bill are merely to carry on with the status quo, but to tidy up the statute book and try to help to deliver a coherent licensing regime for British fishing boats.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 16, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(b) by a Faroe Islands-licensed fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area.
‘(2A) The exception in subsection (2)(b) does not apply in relation to a foreign fishing boat that is for the time being included in a list maintained and published for the purposes of this subsection by the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment excepts foreign fishing boats from the requirement to be licensed under the Bill where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. It also gives the Scottish Ministers power to remove this exception from particular foreign fishing boats by putting them on a published list. These changes are in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Amendment 4, in clause 16, page 13, line 3, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
‘(8) For the purposes of this section a fishing boat is “Faroe Islands-licensed” if there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area.
(9) In this section—
(a) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;
(b) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—
(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,
relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999;
(c) “licence” (except in subsection (8)) means a licence granted under section17.” —(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment inserts definitions into clause 16 in connection with Amendment 3.
Clause 16
Foreign fishing boats required to be licensed if within British fishery limits
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the arrangements under which foreign vessels must be licensed to fish in UK waters, if, of course, such access is negotiated. These arrangements mirror those for British boats.
Luke Pollard
Clause 16 should require an appropriate assessment, which is a form of environmental impact assessment, before the licences for these foreign boats can be issued for fishing in sites protected by the offshore habitats regulations. The Minister will be aware of my fondness for impact assessments, having heard me speak about them in many debates on statutory instruments, as I take the radical view that we should think about actions before we take them.
Regarding the assessments in relation to this clause, only if the appropriate assessment can demonstrate that any vessel will not adversely affect the integrity of a marine site, as the case may be, can the licence be issued. There is a concession for overriding this requirement for reasons of public interest, but I understand that allowing foreign trawlers into UK waters will not automatically qualify for that concession.
For sites such as the Dogger Bank, which we agree is a special area of conservation, this requirement will likely make it difficult to justify continued beam trawling and especially pulse trawling on such sites, including on much of the Dogger Bank.
The Minister will know that with the last iteration of the Fisheries Bill Labour was very determined to see an end to electro-pulse beam trawling, which I know is a view shared by many Government Back Benchers. An SI followed in relation to that issue, but we understand that electro-pulse beam trawling is potentially still taking place around that measure. So I will come back to the question of enforcement; I mention it now just to give the Minister time to find her relevant notes.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
This clause is almost at the heart of what the people of South Ribble are really passionate about—not only the control of our waters and the right to license fishing boats, but the right to make sure that any fisherman or fisherwoman is using our natural resources in a sustainable way. I have received a lot of correspondence about pulse trawling in particular, as well as correspondence about beam trawling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cross-party agreement on this matter should be welcomed?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention and I share her concerns and those of her constituents about electro-pulse beam trawling in particular. It was an area where, sadly, the last time we debated the Fisheries Bill there was not cross-party agreement. Indeed, the proposals to ban electro-pulse beam trawling in British waters were voted down by the Government party at the time, and further voted down when the Bill was debated in the main Chamber.
Having control of who fishes in our waters is really important; I agree with the hon. Member on that. Indeed, that is the position that my hon. Friend, the shadow Fisheries Minister, set out yesterday.
What happens to electro-pulse beam trawling within UK waters is technical, but it still really matters. I use the example of Dogger Bank because there is an assumption at the moment among many fishers and environmentalists that foreign fishing vessels equipped with electro-pulse beam trawling gear are using that gear on the Dogger Bank, partly because of the nature of the seabed in relation to that, while simultaneously having other gear on board, so that they can claim they are using one type of fishing gear when in fact they are using a different type of fishing gear.
I see no justifiable reason for electro-pulse beam trawling in British waters. It ravages our seabed, causes enormous ecological destruction and is not something that the constituents I represent in Plymouth want to see—nor, by the sounds of it, those whom the hon. Member for South Ribble represents. That is why the enforcement question is important.
If an assessment is required under the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 before a new fisheries licence is granted for foreign fishers, especially in special areas of conservation, and there is a concern out there—I believe there is—how is that requirement correctly enforced? Will that additional appropriate assessment prevent foreign fishers from using gear that we regard as environmentally damaging in our own waters?
Victoria Prentis
This bring us to the heart of the Bill. If the Bill goes through, as we hope it will in the next few months, we will be able to manage these issues through our licence conditions. That is the whole point of what we are doing.
Katherine Fletcher
I am a biologist and have done a huge amount on marine ecophysiology. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport makes a strong case about pulse fishing. The point is that we will have control of it and be able to react to changes in scientific evidence and to changes in Dogger Bank, its uses and our desire for it. At the heart of the Bill, which is welcomed cross-party, is what the Minister articulated. Does she agree that the best bit of the Bill is that we will be able to control and evaluate the scientific evidence?
Victoria Prentis
Yes, of course. We are fortunate to have many people on the Committee who are genuinely passionate about these issues and bring a wealth of experience to the table. I am grateful to everyone sitting on the Committee. In the future, these issues will be managed through licence conditions, sometimes on the basis of sophisticated scientific evidence and sometimes—while we are on the subject of Dogger Bank—on the basis of the industry saying it is concerned and that we should temporarily close a fishery while we find out what is going on and take a view on licensing following the evaluation of scientific evidence.
I believe we will discuss a further amendment on pulse fishing later. There are currently five vessels able to pulse-trawl under the control of UK authorities, of which four are English. The licences have been withdrawn from the English vessels, which will not be pulse trawling from the end of the year. That is a win for all of us who are concerned about that form of fishing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 17, page 13, line 29, at end insert—
‘(3A) No licence may be granted under this section unless conditions are attached to that licence so as to require the foreign fishing boat to comply with any standards in relation to environmental protection and marine safety that would apply to the same boat if it were a British fishing boat.’.
Under this amendment, licences granted to foreign fishing boats would require those boats to comply with the same environmental protection and marine safety standards as British fishing boats.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 103, in clause 17, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
‘(5) A licence may not be granted under this section unless the fishing boat meets safety standards that are at least equivalent to those applicable to British fishing boats.’.
This amendment prevents a licence being granted to foreign fishing boats unless the applicant can demonstrate that their vessel meets the standards required of British fishing boats.
Luke Pollard
The amendments seek to apply the same marine safety standards to foreign boats as to British boats. The Minister will know from our debate on Tuesday how important it is that we have similar and equivalent safety standards for everyone fishing in UK waters. In the previous iteration of the Fisheries Bill Committee we had considerable debates about the minimum standard that should be applied to any boat under whatever flag fishing in our waters.
The premise that many fishers voted for Brexit to ensure that level playing field and access is an important one, because the concern is that the cost of implementing regulations for UK fishers—albeit well-intentioned regulations to save lives—is not carried in the same way by some of our European friends, who enjoy lower costs, albeit with a greater risk from lower standards. Amendments 99 and 103 look at whether there should be a more explicit provision in the Bill to say that foreign fishing boats should have the same level of safety as UK fishing boats. That is about not only saving lives, but the economic cost that goes along with that in terms of the regulatory burden for businesses involved.
It is important to make sure that people stay safe. Amendment 103, in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow fisheries Minister, contains the phrase
“at least equivalent to those applicable to British fishing boats.”
Although we have been governed by the same common fisheries policy as our European friends for many years, and by similar obligations under the International Maritime Organisation, they have implemented their safety standards slightly differently. The amendment would therefore ensure that there is equivalence of safety standards and a similar basis, because any fishing boat going down or getting into trouble should worry us all.
Marine safety is not only about the behaviour of the crew onboard in terms of wearing lifejackets. As the Minister knows, I welcome the support of the Department for Transport and her predecessor in the roll-out of the Plymouth lifejacket scheme, which was pioneered in Plymouth. It includes a personal locator beacon on the lifejacket and moves the clasp from the middle of someone’s chest to being lower, which enables them to use filleting knives more easily on board a boat, so it is easier to operate, do their job and stay safe. That roll-out is important, but it is not compulsory and is not being applied to our European friends in the same way.
It is also important to make sure that stability testing is the same, particularly for small boats. The biggest risk to our small boat fleet is of capsize from the change of gear, where stability tests have not proven that boat to be stable in the way that we would all want it to be. There is no suggestion that they are breaching their licence by doing that but, to borrow a plea from the hon. Member for South Ribble in the last debate, there is cross-party support for a high level of marine safety.
I would be grateful if the Minister could respond as to how fishing licences will ensure that there is an equivalence of marine safety between foreign fishing boats and UK fishing boats, and how that will be checked during the implementation of the new regulations to ensure compliance. There is sometimes a sense among British fishers that the enforcement agencies, which for English fisheries is the Royal Navy, look at UK boats more than foreign boats. Whether that is true or not, I am sure the Minister will have heard that in her conversations with fishers. I would be grateful if she could set out the enforcement side as well as the safety side in her response.
Victoria Prentis
I am concerned about the unhelpful unintended consequences of the amendments. As I mentioned in the debate on amendments 71 and 72, schedule 2 already extends regulations to foreign boats, so the Bill clearly provides powers to deliver the environmental aspects present in amendment 99, as we discussed earlier.
Ensuring compliance with safety regulations is more challenging. I will set out the current regime for foreign vessels and then explain why it might not be desirable to require compliance with our safety regulations. Powers exist to allow foreign boats to be inspected in UK ports by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. If problems are found, the MCA will send a report to the flag state or, if sufficiently serious—to the hon. Gentleman’s enforcement point—detain the vessel until such time as the issues are rectified, which seems reasonable and proportionate.
Regulation 28 of the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, which applies to foreign vessels, sets out in detail that where conditions are
“clearly hazardous to health and safety”,
the inspector may take measures to “rectify those conditions” or to “detain the ship”. However, I should add that inspectors are under duty not to detain the ship unreasonably. Foreign vessels are expected to meet the same standards as UK vessels while in UK waters.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that explanation, but I want to press the Minister, so that I understand her a bit more on enforcement. I am concerned that it seems that we are setting a higher regulatory cost for UK fishers than we are allowing for foreign fishers fishing in the same waters.
When it comes to enforcement, can the Minister clarify something? The Marine and Coastguard Agency does not inspect boats at sea. She suggested that, therefore, as a corollary, it will only inspect boats when they are on land. Therefore, unless they are landing their fish at UK ports, they will not be inspected. It falls, therefore, upon the safety, search and rescue, the Royal Navy and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to go to support boats of lower standards that get into trouble, because the regulatory regime that she has just said is sufficient means that they are only inspected at port and not while at sea.
Does the Minister understand fishers’ concerns that this suggests that the regulatory burden on British fishing boats is different from that on foreign fishing boats and, as a result, that there is a different enforcement probability? A UK boat is more likely to be subject to enforcement than a foreign boat, even if it does not adhere to the same standards.
Victoria Prentis
I do believe that, under the laws that regulate the way that vessels fish internationally, it is right that flag states should be responsible for the licensing conditions and health and safety regulations of their own vessels. It may assist the hon. Gentleman to learn that under the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993, regulation 56(1), a foreign-owned UK flag vessel can be removed from the register like any UK vessel. What we cannot do is interfere in the licensing regimes of other flag states.
Mr Goodwill
I am not only a former Fishing Minister, but a former Shipping Minister. Is it not the case that if a vessel docks in a UK port, it could be subject to a port state control inspection, which would inspect safety equipment, as well as the welfare of staff? Indeed, following on from the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made, if we are going to have to inspect boats at sea for safety equipment, that is going to take pressure away from inspecting them for illegal fishing.
Victoria Prentis
I am grateful to the former Minister for making those points. They are points I had attempted to make earlier, but clearly not as succinctly.
Luke Pollard
On the basis that the Minister is not setting out a level playing field between UK fishers and foreign fishers, I am concerned that this sends the wrong message to fishers. However, I understand that we will be revisiting the issue of safety a number of times during this process, so I will not be pushing any of these amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
National Landing Requirement
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 18, page 13, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.
This amendment would ensure that regulations establishing a national landing requirement for the devolved nations are made by the devolved administrations rather than by the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 88, in clause 18, page 13, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 89, in clause 18, page 13, leave out lines 41 to 43, insert “, and” at the end of line 40.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 105, in clause 18, page 13, leave out lines 41 to 43.
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved administrations before determining the national landing requirement.
Amendment 90, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 91, in clause 18, page 14, line 2, leave out “the UK fishing industry” and insert “their respective fishing industries”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 106, in clause 18, page 14, line 16, after “limits”, insert
“and outside of Scotland, the Scottish zone, Wales, the Welsh zone, Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland zone”.
This amendment changes the definition of ‘landing requirement’ into an England-only one.
Amendment 107, in clause 18, page 14, line 17, leave out
“the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, Guernsey or Jersey”
and insert “England”.
This amendment changes the definition of ‘landing requirement’ into an England-only one.
Steven Bonnar
We in the SNP are concerned about Government amendment 5, which would possibly remove clause 18 from the Bill in its entirety. We oppose that in the strongest terms, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to do likewise. If they respect the sentiments of devolution, they will support the amendments we have tabled, which we do intend to put to a vote.
A landings target is currently the policy of the governing party in Scotland, and it is a policy that Scottish Ministers are keen to progress. The UK Government, on the face of it, have simply refused to engage in any way—far less in a meaningful way—with the reasonable and rational intent of the amendments from the other place. The Conservatives, in my opinion, are again showing their true colours: they have no respect for devolved national parliamentary matters, and it is highly disappointing that ensuring the economic value and benefits of sea fishing for coastal communities, and for labour markets and livelihoods in constituencies such as mine, is not high enough on their agenda.
The amendments made in the other place that the Government are seeking to remove are relevant and considered. They would have aided the delivery of the aims in clause 1, and would also have followed through on the Government’s pledge of levelling up. However, we now know—if some of us did not beforehand—that a pledge by this Government or their Ministers means virtually nothing when they can break laws left, right and centre, willy-nilly. The amendments would have safeguarded employment in the processing and distribution sections of the sector, which are so important to my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and to Scotland as a whole.
One job at sea is widely regarded as being equivalent to 10 on dry land, and coastal communities are crying out for investment and support. They currently have higher rates of unemployment and lower wages than other parts of their countries; they face the additional challenges of social isolation; they have fewer training and apprenticeship prospects; and ultimately, they are in poorer health. A minimum landings requirement for fish caught in our own waters could have provided a long-overdue stimulant and a renaissance for these communities. It could have breathed new life into many of the smaller or less used ports and harbours across Scotland and the other countries of the UK. The opportunity to do so is being passed up.
The other major concern we have—I cannot emphasise this enough—is the tampering with, and erosion of, devolution. I will not often agree with folk draped in ermine cloaks, nor will many of the folk I represent, but those in the other place identified the flaws in the original drafting of this Bill when it came to respecting the devolved Administrations. It was both striking and disappointing in equal measure that this was not reflected in the original amendment and is something we seek to remedy.
I am not sure why the Government have refused point blank to engage with the amendment with any good faith, and I seek answers from the Minister about that. She may claim that the Government already have powers to do this, but where are those and in what legislation? Why will they not use this legislative opportunity to update those measures?
The Scottish Government are already creating a voluntary monitoring approach to vessels under 12 metres participating in inshore Scottish waters, and have plans in place to extend that pilot to larger vessels in different fisheries too. Again, the devolved nature of the responsibility was not reflected in the original drafting, which is why the other place sought the amendment. It is a matter that needs to be remedied so that the power to make regulations on the matter is devolved to the fisheries public authorities.
I urge colleagues to safeguard our fisheries, to support the position of the devolved Governments and to allow opportunities to revitalise our coastal and sea-linked communities by supporting our amendments, which are designed to do that. I commend them to the Committee.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for laying out clearly why we think these amendments are important. I will add a few thoughts, particularly those that relate to remote rural communities such as my own, in Argyll and Bute.
It is surely common sense to want to encourage as many vessels as possible to land as much catch as they can in UK ports. I know, because we have talked about it often enough in this place, that it is often our remote, rural, poor communities that get left behind when there is talk of regeneration and investment. Across the UK, formerly thriving fishing communities are losing population and are struggling to see a long-term future for themselves. Those communities are exactly the ones we can seek to help, in some measure, by supporting this amendment.
Landing more catch in UK ports will attract investment, help create jobs and encourage people not just to stay but to actively come and live in those communities. Areas such as Argyll and Bute, with its dependence on shellfish, have been particularly badly hit by the impact of coronavirus. There was a 68% decrease in the value of the shellfish catch in March 2020 compared with March 2019, and I understand the figures for April were even worse. Communities need our help.
There is a direct link to what we discussed in the Committee on Tuesday, about fishing being a national asset. Surely, if it is—
The Chair
Mr O’Hara, I am sorry to interrupt you, but I want to make this clear to everyone. I have already allowed some latitude to Mr Bonnar because it is his first time moving an amendment in Committee. At this stage, people should be speaking specifically to the amendments. There will be space for a clause stand part debate on clause 18 if people have wider observations that they want to make. Can I draw you back to the amendments?
Brendan O’Hara
Thank you, Mr McCabe. I will take your advice and catch your eye at the stand part debate.
Our amendment 87 makes this clause devolution friendly and recognises that the Government should, by now, understand and accept devolution. Amendment 87 would allow the devolved Administrations to establish their own national landing requirements, rather than having those set by a UK Secretary of State. Throughout the debate, we have returned to the idea that the person in political charge of English fisheries is also the Secretary of State, and that it cannot be left to a UK Secretary of State to apply laws and rules where there are clearly devolved areas of competence. Yet again, the Government have missed that and our amendment 87 seeks to resolve that.
Mr McCabe, I apologise again, and I will seek to catch your eye in the stand part debate.
Luke Pollard
Those listening to this debate will need to listen to the stand part debate and then the amendment debate separately so that this part of the debate makes sense to those not following parliamentary procedure.
Victoria Prentis
I will try to deal with the amendments now and discuss wider matters later, although I accept it is very confusing for everybody.
The amendments are unnecessary. Clause 18 was added by our friends in the other place. I will set out my concerns about it in detail later. First, I would like to reassure the Committee. We said in the fisheries White Paper that we would reform the economic link. The Government intend to hold a public consultation very shortly that will seek views on proposals to strengthen the economic link licence condition in England. The proposal will look to increase the benefit, from the current 50%, to the UK of fishing by English-registered foreign vessels.
In answer to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, who asked where the powers for any change come from, schedule 3 allows us to place conditions on licences, including conditions about an economic link, so that we need no further regulation-making powers. If the Bill is passed, it is there in the Bill. I acknowledge that amendments 87, 89, 90 and 91 seek to address one of the issues with the new clause, which was raised by the Government in the other place. The clause as a whole retains an inflexible and narrow approach to ensuring that the UK benefits from fish caught in its waters.
Similarly, amendments 105 to 107 seek to amend clause 18 so that it is compatible with the devolution settlements, but we are concerned that they still fail to do so. The regulation of vessels registered in one Administration is largely a matter for that Administration, with each Administration licensing its vessels wherever they fish. The amended clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish vessels in English waters, and so would be regulating within areas of devolved competence.
Where previously the clause allowed regulation in devolved competence to be done without the devolved Administration’s consent but after consultation, these amendments remove even the need to consult the devolved Administrations on the regulation of their boats. This is contrary to the constructive and collaborative approach that we have taken so far. I do not recognise the hon. Gentlemen’s readout of how we have managed this; we have managed fisheries in a very collaborative way. We have sought to legislate for the devolved Administrations only in areas where we have been asked to. Again, the amendments do not reflect the other ways that boats can show an economic link to the UK and which benefit the country in different ways, not just through landing fish. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
The Chair
I remind hon. Members again that we are dealing with amendment 87. Once we have worked through the various amendments, there will be time for a clause stand part debate.
Brendan O'Hara
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 18, page 13, line 36, leave out “or 16(1)”.
This amendment would mean that regulations establishing a national landing requirement would not apply to foreign boats.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 86, in clause 18, page 14, line 9, leave out “or 16(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Brendan O'Hara
This is a similar argument to the one we heard before; the amendment seeks to make the clause as devolution-friendly as possible, and it is important that we have right to do so. It is really a probing amendment to ask the Minister about the licensing of foreign vessels. We are concerned that there would be tit-for-tat reprisals as a result of requiring licensed foreign vessels to land their catch in the UK. Many foreign vessels land in UK harbours already, but the clause could result in other coastal states’ requiring UK-licensed vessels to land catches in their harbours. That would defeat the purpose. We absolutely want to encourage landings in the UK to help processing and, of course, for the landing fees, but we fear that, as the clause is worded, forcing people to do so will lead to tit-for-tat reprisals and compound the problem.
Victoria Prentis
I agree that any landing requirement should not apply to foreign vessels, which will need to demonstrate a link to their own flag states. We would not want to see reciprocal measures put in place against UK vessels that fish outside UK waters—I very much agree with that. The Government believe, however, that the clause should be removed from the Bill because it is inflexible, does not respect the devolution settlements, and will not achieve what its supporters believe. A landing requirement already exists for all UK vessels as part of the economic licence condition. The power to attach such conditions to vessel licences is provided in schedule 3, as I said earlier. Ensuring that vessels that use UK fishing opportunities bring benefit to the UK is of course very important. That is why we have included the national benefit objective in clause 1. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Brendan O'Hara
I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Brendan O'Hara
To nobody’s surprise, I rise to argue that—at the risk of repeating myself, which I have tried not to do—clause 18 is important. It is important because it gives hope to our remote, rural fishing communities littered along the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, who need help. The clause goes some way to help them. I know the Government have indicated their desire to remove the clause, but I urge them at this stage to think again. Communities such as mine in Argyll and Bute, which depends particularly on shellfish, are being decimated. They need hope, and I ask the Government not to extinguish clause 18.
On Tuesday we talked about fishing being a national asset, and about how it can be a catalyst for change and can benefit the wider community. As a national asset, surely it should not be there just to make very rich people even richer; it should be there for the economic wellbeing of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Landing fish into communities means jobs in transport, fish processing, environmental health, retail, hospitality, tourism and construction. Hopefully, it will also mean that more and more young people will want to take advantage of working at sea on the boats.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, it is reckoned that one job at sea creates 10 onshore jobs. That in itself should be reason enough for the Government to encourage as many boats as possible to offload into UK ports. It is because landing fish into communities is such an important economic driver that the Scottish Government have been pursuing for a number of years a policy of landing targets, which is something that I know Scottish Ministers are keen to progress.
I implore the Government not to extinguish the hope, because our coastal communities need hope. In many places, it is all that they have. Embattled, formerly thriving fishing communities need our support, and this is one way to do it. It is not just about boats landing in harbours, but about the associated jobs in processing, construction and transport, and it becomes a magnet for tourism and hospitality. It is that important, and I implore the Government to reconsider and to give our communities a bit of hope.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I wish to speak against the Government’s ambition to remove clause 18.
The clause makes job creation a major priority. Labour’s “jobs in coastal communities” clause was part of the laws to ensure that at least two-thirds of fish caught in UK waters must be landed at our ports. As we hurtle ahead into a no-deal Brexit situation, it is imperative that we give our coastal communities a chance to recover and thrive. That is most important in the light of the current coronavirus pandemic.
The successful amendment, which the Government now seek to reverse, protects jobs at sea, creates numerous jobs on land and at sea, and will provide a much-needed and anticipated boost to our coastal communities. As hon. Members know, such communities have been hit hard by the pandemic and subsequently locked down, and they have been decimated by austerity over the past 10 years.
The British Ports Association was right to say that the Fisheries Bill
“should be strengthening the economic link between our fisheries and our ports and coastal communities”.
There is currently no requirement for boats exploiting UK fishing quota opportunities to land fish caught in our waters in the UK. As a result, 40% of UK quota is landed in Europe, where much of the economic value is realised. That leaves our own British fishing businesses sidelined, unable to benefit from the fish caught in our own seas. That is not right. Increased landing in the UK would mean that our coastal communities would benefit from fish caught in the UK seas. That would mean more jobs and more prosperity and would provide better and increased benefits to our coastal communities.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am proud to represent the coastal town of Fleetwood, which is part of the fishing industry in Lancashire— or at least it was, before the last deep sea trawler left Fleetwood in 1982. After almost 40 years of fishing decline in the town, I have seen the knock-on effect on people’s earnings and on economic prosperity, and the struggles that we have in the town.
The decline of the deep sea fishing industry cannot be held solely accountable for the fortunes of the town that I am proud to represent in this House, but it is no doubt part of the wider picture, alongside other issues such as the Beeching cuts and the rise of cheaper and package holidays. The reality is that those in coastal communities have a lower wage than people who live inland—people earn around £1,600 a year less. The Bill could offer a framework by which coastal communities such as Fleetwood could really benefit from the kind of change they have been telling me they have wanted for a very long time.
My constituency voted leave. When my constituents voted to take back control, it was not just about fishing; it was also about the regeneration of coastal communities. The clause offers a framework by which we could see not just the economic benefits of fish landed in ports such as Fleetwood, but also the knock-on effects for jobs in fish processing. We still have hundreds of jobs in that sector. It would be of economic benefit to the wider town.
I represent one coastal community, but the clause would benefit isolated and rural fishing communities up and down the United Kingdom, including those communities that perhaps used to have a connection to fishing. The clause should stand part of the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the reasoning of those who support the clause. However, British fishermen land fish abroad because that is the market for which it is destined; the majority of fish caught by British fishermen is exported to those lucrative markets. While that is not an option for those catching crab and lobster off Scarborough and Whitby, when that is landed it is put on trucks—more often than not French or Spanish trucks—that transport it back there. I worry that the provisions in clause 18 would result in fishermen getting less for their fish because they have to add transportation costs. It would create jobs for French lorry drivers and for ferry workers and those who work on the tunnel, but it could have a negative consequence in terms of the income for our fishers.
Brendan O'Hara
On that point, the right hon. Gentleman knows we are on polar opposite sides of the Brexit debate, but if this idea is about taking back control and this sea of opportunity, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, who is that sea of opportunity for? Is it purely for those who own the quota? Is it purely for those who own the boats? Is it purely for those who work in the industry? Or is that sea of opportunity not meant to include the regeneration of the United Kingdom, and particularly its ports? The clause would do that, and by throwing it out, the Government are surely singularly failing to do that.
Mr Goodwill
The UK intends to establish itself as a global trading nation, and part of that global trade is trade with the European Union, our most important neighbour in terms of trade. Many of the most valuable species that fishermen catch are valuable because they have such a premium in markets abroad. We are once again seeing the law of unintended consequences. When we look at our carbon footprint, we need to look at the carbon cost of a ship in, say, the channel that was intending to land in France having to steam back to the UK, put that fish on a truck and then take it back, possibly to the same port where it intended to go for that market. While I understand the sympathies behind the clause, the unintended consequences, both for value for our fishermen and the carbon footprint of the fishing industry, are both very negative.
Luke Pollard
Government amendment 5 goes against the very heart of what was promised to coastal communities in the referendum. It is a betrayal of our coastal communities that the Conservatives are supporting jobs in foreign ports. The clause, which was a Labour amendment, was deliberately designed to create jobs in our coastal communities, in ports from Newlyn, Plymouth, Portavogie in Northern Ireland, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Fleetwood and Grimsby. It was designed to inject more energy and economic activity into those places.
I disagree with Government amendment 5, which seeks to remove clause 18, but more than that, I believe it betrays a promise made to many of those communities that Brexit would deliver more jobs and a revival of the fishing community. When I speak to fishers and the community around the fish quay in Plymouth, their model for whether Brexit is a success for fishers and fishing is whether they see more boats in our port, more fish being landed and more jobs created. That is what the clause, passed in the Lords, will do—create more jobs in our ports. The former fishing Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, described it as perhaps only creating distribution jobs. At a time when our coastal communities have been hit hard by 10 years of austerity, and by under-investment for far too long, creating more jobs in our coastal communities is something that we should welcome and go for.
The debate on the clause in the House of Lords was good, with Conservative and Labour peers and those from the devolved Administrations of all parties making the case that we should be creating more jobs in our coastal communities. It was promised that Brexit would deliver that for fishing. It is bizarre that we now see the Government arguing against that very thing, supporting jobs in foreign ports and not in our own country. It is an odd reversal of a promise given to those communities, and why I cannot support the Government amendment.
The clause would create a jobs boom because, as has been said by several Members, every job in the catching sector creates 10 on shore. That is true. Those jobs are created in fish markets, in distribution—I do not pooh-pooh that at all; these are important jobs—and in processing. It will create an economic stimulus and an incentive to process more fish at the point of landing, rather than to have those processing jobs in foreign ports at the point of landing elsewhere, because it would mean fresher fish processed in our ports. It will create greater value from the processing of that fish. That is why all those are important.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Iceland imposed a similar restriction on the processing of fish, it would decimate places such as Grimsby, which relies on processing fish imported to the UK?
Luke Pollard
Indeed, and if clause 18 were about processing fish, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have a point, but—I am sure he has read it—it is about landing fish, rather than processing them. That is a good cul-de-sac to try to take us down, but that is not what the clause actually says. I went to Grimsby recently and spoke to people on the fish quay, and they hark back to the days when there were 800 fishing boats in their port. They want more fish to be landed in their port, so it is bizarre in the extreme that the Government are arguing against more fish being landed there.
Having more fish processed in Britain will create more jobs. Interfish in Plymouth creates an enormous number of jobs from landing the fish that it catches in Plymouth and processing them there, supplying our supermarkets. I want to see more British supermarkets buying British fish. That would be greatly helped by this clause, because more British fish would be available in our markets.
A number of points have been raised about why the clause does not work, so let me briefly address them. First, the former fishing Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, mentioned the increased carbon footprint. At a point when Conservative MPs voted against the net zero objective in the Fisheries Bill, I think that does not apply in the same way. We want fishing to be carbon free, and we want more fish to be landed in our ports. I agree that it is often argued that fishers chase the higher price that is delivered in foreign markets, and that if they if they landed in a UK port, the price would be lower. I hope the same arguments are used about any departure from any regimes in the European Union that make travel across borders easy. Delays at the border put an extra focus on this. I hope the argument that has been applied to this clause is applied equally to the Government’s policy, but I fear that it will not be. None the less, it was a good attempt.
As we said in the debate on Tuesday, fish should be a public asset. The economic link between the fish in our waters and the United Kingdom should be strengthened. That is what clause 18 does: it strengthens the economic link. I fear, on this point, that the arguments of Government MPs will need to be reversed when the licence conditions change.
I welcomed the consultation that the Minister has set out, but I disagree with her that the figure is 50% currently. As she knows, landing 50% of fish in the UK is potentially one of the licence conditions, but it is not the only one, and it is important to state that if a company has a brass plaque in the UK and employs UK crew, it can get out of that. That is why many fishers catching fish in UK waters land nearly all their catch in foreign ports. One trawler in Wales lands barely any of its catch in British ports; it lands 84% in foreign ports. That fish should be supporting the Welsh economy. There are examples of that in English and Scottish waters. That is why this matters so much. We will be betraying those coastal communities if we do not support job creation.
I hope the Minister, when she comes to her consultation, cuts and pastes this clause, as Ministers did for Labour’s last set of amendments to the Fisheries Bill, and makes it her own. I am a big fan of Louis Walshisms in politics. The Government should make it their own. I hope they copy this clause and put it into their consultation, because we need to create jobs in coastal communities, and that is what the clause seeks to do.
When this clause comes to a vote—surely it will do—and Labour and SNP Members vote in favour of the jobs in coastal communities clause and in favour of landing at least two thirds of fish in our coastal ports, I hope that every single Conservative MP who represents a coastal community will be able to explain to their electorates in those communities why they chose to support ports on the continent, rather than the port that they represent, why they chose to create and preserve jobs in foreign ports, not in their communities, and why they chose not to give the young people in their communities the opportunity that would come from enhanced employment not only in the catching sector but in processing, and the engineering jobs that accompany this. I hope they have a decent argument for that, because this flies in the face of everything that has been promised to coastal communities. That is why Labour will be supporting keeping clause 18 in the Bill to protect jobs in coastal communities, and opposing the Government’s plan to continue the export of those jobs to our European friends.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman has done his job; I am now going to do mine, which is to bring us back to this Bill. I do not believe that anybody in this room is not equally passionately in favour of having more jobs in coastal communities, but this is not a jobs in coastal communities clause. It requires the Government to consult on landing a 15% higher proportion of fish in this country. My argument is that the Government are equally as passionate as the hon. Gentleman, and indeed everyone who has spoken well, about coastal communities and their needs, but the Bill already allows us to meet the clause’s aim in a more appropriate way through the objective in clause 1 and the powers, which I have already gone into, in schedule 3.
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 10th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 September 2020 - (10 Sep 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Order. There is far too much jollity in the Room. We will put an end to that.
I have a few announcements. Colleagues may remove their jackets, if they so wish. I am looking at a colleague who obviously knew I was going to say that—that is an admonishment by the way, but a very gentle one. Before we begin, I will make a few preliminary points. Most of you want to get back to your constituencies this evening. I do not know how we will proceed, but I am sure there will be a clip to it. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance; I shall intervene, if necessary, to remind everyone. I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, and Hansard colleagues would be grateful if hon. Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 19
Further provision about licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The clause sets out the meaning of a “sea fishing licence”.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Very briefly—not to interrupt your pace.
I am sure the Minister has had time to reflect on the question that I asked in this morning’s session about the difference between a hard and soft copy licence. I wonder whether this might be an opportunity to clarify that situation.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I do not have that clarity yet. I anticipate that it is something I will have to talk to the team about over the next few days and, indeed, probably weeks, given the state of the pandemic.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Sea fishing licences: further provision
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 3, page 52, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) A sea fishing licensing authority must attach to any sea fishing licence appropriate conditions with respect to the safety of the boat and its crew.”
This amendment would require the licensing authority to set appropriate conditions regarding safety when granting a sea fishing licence.
This amendment continues the theme that we have had for a number of amendments: safety. I am grateful that the efforts of the Departments for Transport and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have contributed to an improvement in safety and, importantly, the involvement of more fishers in making decisions about safety—not just regulation of them for safety purposes—but I think we all agree that more work still needs to be done.
I mentioned earlier the need to have more fishers wearing lifejackets that come as standard with personal locator beacons, which take the “search” out of the search and rescue when boats go down or fishers are washed overboard. I want to see more stability work, especially for our smaller boats that I mentioned earlier. Having remote vessel monitoring and CCTV on board, which was proposed in amendment 1 in the Lords, helps ensure that fishing stays within the law, but it also incentivises fishers to wear a lifejacket and come home safely to each other. I know there is cross-party concern about this issue, and I want to reiterate the support for cross-party working that I gave the Minister earlier. I will not say any more about remote vessel monitoring, because that comes later in the Bill, but the amendment was an attempt to probe the Government position on this issue.
Victoria Prentis
While being very sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment and, indeed, all attempts to improve safety at sea, I feel that it is unnecessary. These are complex areas that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are the responsibility of both the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as well as being our responsibility. Fishing vessel owners are responsible for ensuring their vessels comply with the regulations on construction and how they are operated. All fishing vessels are surveyed or inspected. If the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is not satisfied with the safety standards around a vessel’s construction, or if it discovers an emerging safety issue, the safety certificate will not be issued. If the vessel has a certificate, it may be detained and able to leave port only to enable repairs to be carried out.
As I mentioned earlier, maritime safety is already extensively covered in legislation and accompanied by comprehensive guidance, and I do not think that adding another layer of bureaucracy would make any tangible difference to safety. Education and behaviour change are what we know will make a difference. With that explanation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I now call the Minister to move amendment 100. [Interruption.] Sorry, the shadow Minister—this is not a good performance from your Chair. I apologise. I shall up my game.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the confidence that you have in me and my party. It is consistent with some of your comments in the media recently. Thank you very much, Chair.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 100, in schedule 3, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must include a prohibition on the use of any form of electric pulse beam trawl fishing.’
This amendment would require sea fishing licences to prohibit electric pulse beam trawl fishing.
The amendment that has been tabled in my name and that of the shadow fisheries Minister relates to pulse beam trawling, which is an area that we briefly touched on earlier, and I know that colleagues have similar views on this issue. What we are attempting to do with this amendment is to prohibit the use of electro-pulse beam trawling in any form. I suspect that the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed because of the statutory instrument that was passed last year. However, I hope to press her further on enforcement in this area.
Parliament initially rejected Labour’s proposal to ban pulse beam trawling but then saw the light and passed a statutory instrument to put into action the intention behind the original amendment that we tabled the last time we discussed the Fisheries Bill. However, I am concerned that the scientific derogation is too large, allowing 5% of a fleet—up to 200 vessels, potentially—to use this gear.
I am grateful that the Minister set out earlier her intent that the English fisheries Minister should effectively remove the licences from those boats that have electro-pulse gear in English waters. However, what this amendment seeks is a prohibition on the use of any form of electro-pulse beam trawling on any boats with any flag in our waters. There is a very strong environmental case for doing so. Electro-pulse beam trawling is utter vandalism of our seabed. It is indiscriminate—in particular, it kills many smaller fish that might otherwise grow and reproduce. Therefore, it poses a greater threat of stock damage than other methods of fishing. In particular we are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, about the risk of this technology in certain locations around our waters, where the use of electro-pulse beam trawling methods and gear can be disguised by the claim that other gear is being used.
The Minister will know that I and other Labour Members have strong views on how we need to protect our marine protected areas, and about the gear used in those areas. We believe that such protection should be part of the nine-year journey that we effectively have between now and 2030, when our marine protected areas will effectively need to become no-take zones. Again, I will reiterate what I said on Tuesday about that issue, namely that it would do the Government credit and do the debate a lot of good if they could start the conversation with our coastal communities about how that will happen, because I do not think there is awareness of that situation among our coastal communities and I think that, when they find out about it, it will come as quite a shock to them.
So, to support the work of the Minister and to help her to have an easy life by not having to respond to angry fishers when they find out about that change, there is a debate to be had around this issue. I think that debate can be softened somewhat by clearly saying that we do not support in any way the use of this method of fishing—electro-pulse beam trawling—and that, as an independent coastal state, we will outlaw it in our waters.
Importantly, the amendment seeks to remove the scientific derogation that was in the SI by saying that we do not want this technology in our waters at all. I am concerned about the scientific derogation being used, as other countries have sometimes used it, to disguise commercial fishing activities. Indeed, if we look at our friends over in the Netherlands, how much of their fleet was using this particular gear and disguising it behind a scientific purpose is a cause for concern.
So, in support of the amendment, I will say again that there is both cross-party concern and concern in all our fishing communities. A statutory instrument was delivered to put into practice what Labour proposed last time, but I do not think that it is working to the extent that we had initially intended it would. I remember that when we discussed this issue then, there was a concern about how enforcement would work. I encourage the Minister to work with her officials to look again at enforcement in this area, because it seems that environmental groups and some fisheries have a legitimate concern about the potential damage being done to specific marine areas by this method of fishing.
Victoria Prentis
We have rehearsed some of these arguments already today and I know that the hon. Gentleman had this debate several times with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before he became Secretary of State.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the statutory instrument made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 prohibits foreign fishing boats from fishing with electric current in UK waters. As I said earlier, the four English-registered vessels using it have been informed by the Maritime Management Organisation that their authorisations will be withdrawn at the end of this year. The authorisation for the single electro-pulse beam trawler registered in Scotland will be reviewed by Scottish Ministers in advance of July 2021, when the EU prohibition comes into force.
Pulse fishing will be prohibited, so its enforcement will be dealt with in the same way as any other type of illegal or unlawful fishing. I will continue to keep in touch with the Marine Management Organisation as to the position at sea. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send us details of any specific instances and concerns he has. I remind him that the MMO can check any vessel fishing in our waters at any time, so it will be dealt with in the normal way. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
The concern put out there is specifically about enforcement. I realise that the Minister does not have figures to hand on the scope of enforcement, which would be useful for the debate. However, I will seek those through a parliamentary question. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 3, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must include a prohibition on using a fishing boat greater than 100 metres in length in any of the protected areas specified in subsection (7).
(7) The protected areas to which the prohibition in subsection (6) applies are marine conservation zones and marine protected areas as defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(8) The list of protected areas in subsection (7) may be added to by the Secretary of State by means of regulations.’.
This amendment would include in the sea fishing licence conditions a prohibition on using a fishing boat longer than 100 metres in protected areas.
The amendment seeks to address the concern received from constituents by nearly every single Member of the House about supertrawlers and the activities of fishing boats larger than 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas. Until recently, Britain did not have a single supertrawler larger than 100 metres, but one that previously flew a foreign flag has been reflagged in the last few weeks—I believe to help with quota aggregation, which is a practice used in particular by larger foreign-owned companies for moving more quota around their different boats—which means we have one. Regardless of whether we have one supertrawler over 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas or more, we as a Parliament must take a view about whether we want such supertrawlers fishing in our marine protected areas.
The Greenpeace campaign on this issue has attracted the signatures of not only a large number of Back Benchers, but a number of Ministers. I appreciate that it is difficult for DEFRA Ministers to sign up for a campaign about the Department they look after, but it is good to see that there is support within Government for banning supertrawlers over 100 metres in our marine protected areas. That is why, reflecting widespread public concern, we tabled the amendment to ban those fishing boats in excess of 100 metres from fishing in the UK’s MPAs.
A Greenpeace investigation revealed that in the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent 5,500 hours fishing in marine protected areas. Those are areas meant to safeguard vulnerable marine habitats; instead, they are being threatened by highly destructive industrial fishing methods, including those deployed by these boats that can harvest huge quantities of fish from our oceans.
The Secretary of State already has the power to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres and indeed the Minister and her Department could choose to deploy that licence condition. I note that, to date, the Government have not done so. Now that this issue has been brought to the public’s attention, a positive Government response is important. The amendment seeks to do so by amending the primary legislation. If the Minister chooses to oppose this sensible amendment, subsequent secondary legislation or confirmation of alterations in fishing licences would be required.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I understand how contentious this is. Is it not the case that the marine protected areas are there to protect the seabed, and that most of the trawlers fish mid-water and catch species that move well beyond those protected areas? I am not seeking to defend them; I am simply saying that we need to understand exactly the impact that the trawlers have on the marine protected areas.
Luke Pollard
The former Minister raises a good question. Marine protected areas do not exclusively protect the seabed, although that is a clear part of the validity of any marine protection. Such areas also protect species mix and can also deal with bird life and other forms of ocean-going life. The issue is complicated by the diversity that we seek to protect. Marine protected areas protect the seabed, but they also apply in other ways as well. None the less, the commitment that the Government have made around the UN oceans treaty is one that the Labour party fully supports. I say in all candour to the Minister that it will be a difficult sell and a difficult journey between now and 2030 to pitch that to fishers, but we need to have that honest conversation with them.
The Benyon review’s remarks about how highly protected marine protected areas can be designated, which effectively make MPAs no-take zones, need to include fishers. There is huge support among British fishers, particularly among the small boat fleet, for the banning of supertrawlers. Apart from the supertrawler that I mentioned earlier that currently flies a British flag, but did not until very recently, all the supertrawlers that fish in UK waters, especially in marine protected areas, are foreign-owned boats. There is a huge advantage to our sustainability and our support for our domestic fishing industry if we make the case now to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres and if we start the conversation about how we move the Benyon review recommendations into a greater awareness with a plan as to how that comes about. I hope the Minister—no doubt she objects to this particular amendment—will set out how she intends to implement a similar ban, because I think a ban is coming. I cannot see that the Government’s position is sustainable if they do not ban supertrawlers over 100 metres, if only due to the very sincere and heartfelt public opposition to that method of fishing.
Victoria Prentis
I do recognise the huge interest and concern from across the House and from many of our constituents in the campaign against supertrawlers. However, once again, I do not consider the amendment necessary. There is a devolution issue with it, and I politely say again that the Bill is deliberately a framework Bill to enable the Government to take powers that would enable them not to license supertrawlers in future. Although the amendment is well intentioned, it is simply not necessary.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing to lead diplomatic efforts to protect at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030, and 357 marine protected areas already protect about 25% of UK waters. Of course, protecting those areas is only the first step towards achieving protected waters. When we were in the EU, we had to get agreement from other member states with an interest to bring forward management measures in MPAs. Owing to the level of fishing interest in our waters from others in the EU, we were not able to reach agreement in the way that we wanted to on these measures. Now that we have left, the Bill already gives us the powers in schedule 9 to protect English waters, both inshore and offshore. We anticipate that this programme of work and new licences will begin as soon as possible in the new year.
As well as the new management measures that we will be able to introduce, paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 to the Bill provides for the relevant licensing authority to attach conditions to a licence where necessary. The licensing conditions in the Bill are wide and flexible, and should be a suitably flexible way of managing our fisheries in the future. When the transition period ends, we will be able to restrict the activities of foreign vessels in our waters and decide, for the first time in 40 years, who can come in to fish. The Bill’s licensing regime already gives us the powers to do that.
I understand completely that the thought of large boats hoovering up fish in protected areas of the sea is concerning for many; however, the impact of a vessel on an MPA is determined by how damaging the method used is, rather than the size of the vessel. Pelagic fishing, which is the method usually used by vessels of this size, and which takes place within the water column, is unlikely to affect the seabed features that most marine protected areas are designed to protect.
As I said earlier, an added complexity is that the regulation of sea fishing is devolved. The amendment, in seeking to legislate for a blanket approach across all the Administrations, would be a problem for the devolution settlements. I hope that I have sufficiently reassured the hon. Gentleman that mechanisms to manage and restrict the activities of supertrawlers are already in the Bill, if that is the route we choose to take. I hope that I have also reassured him by reiterating the Government’s commitment to further protecting our sea, and I ask that he withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
If the Minister had given a commitment to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres with the licence conditions, I would have happily withdrawn the amendment, but as she has said only that the Government are taking powers, with no commitment to ban supertrawlers, I am afraid that we could be waiting for a very long time for those powers to be used. As such, and because the issue is so pressing and of such public concern, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 95, in schedule 3, page 55, line 4, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment would make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
This is a very simple amendment, which seeks to move from a negative process to an affirmative one. We have seen that good parliamentary scrutiny improves Government legislation and that, when things are rushed or not given scrutiny, faults and things that even those pushing the devices may not be aware of emerge. That is why we are seeking, as standard in such matters, to move negative procedures to affirmative ones, to ensure that the Government can achieve their objectives by having improved legislation, rather than rushed legislation that they then seek to change subsequently.
Later amendments that remove lots of the statutory instruments that we spent many hours working on show that good scrutiny lends itself to the delivery of Government objectives and better policy making, and offers more people the chance to contribute to policy making. That is why we are seeking to have an affirmative resolution policy here, rather than a negative one.
Victoria Prentis
Much as I enjoy our exchanges, the difficulty with this amendment is that it would mean that every time the Government wanted to change a highly technical rule about the licensing of fishing boats, it would be subject to debate.
The change of procedure would apply to two powers. First, paragraph 7(1) of schedule 3 restates an existing power to make regulations about how licensing functions should be exercised. In our view, the existing regulation-making power is necessary so that the UK’s licensing authorities may make provision about the operation of their licensing regimes—such as in relation to the manner in which they issue and notify licences. The nature of those matters does not warrant the affirmative procedure.
Secondly, paragraph 7(3) of schedule 3 provides the power to authorise the making of charges in relation to licenses. The procedure followed in this paragraph is the same as that for provisions that we are replacing in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The use of the negative procedure continues the status quo in that case. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Luke Pollard
In the debate on landing fish in coastal communities and banning supertrawlers, the Minister said that the salvation to those causes lies in the licence restrictions. She cannot argue on those controversial issues that the future needs to be trusted to the licence conditions and then deny Parliament’s scrutiny of those licence conditions. However, recognising that she probably will take this as an opportunity for greater consultation, perhaps with stakeholders, before such decisions are made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 27, in schedule 3, page 56, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a) sections 15 to 17,’
This amendment updates the definition of “licensing function” so that it includes functions under clause 16.
This is a technical amendment that updates the definition of licensing function. It will allow licensing authorities to transfer the licensing functions in clause 16 to another licensing authority if required.
I have one bit of good news for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which is that I have just had confirmation that licences in England can continue to be emailed. That is not entirely relevant to this amendment, Chair—I am sorry.
Luke Pollard
Briefly, it is good to hear that licences can be emailed. I will come back to that point.
This technical amendment relates to how foreign boats and UK boats could be regarded in different regulatory environments, so I do not think it is as slight as the Minister is suggesting. How British boats and foreign boats are judged and regulated is at the heart of the Bill, because I am concerned that there is not a level playing field. It is good news that the licence can be emailed and I will pick that up in due course, but we will not be opposing this amendment.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule replicates the powers in section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. Those powers are given to the licensing authorities and are necessary to implement a vessel licensing regime. Paragraph 1(1) includes powers to attach conditions to a licence. The schedule provides that licensing authorities may add, vary or remove a licence. The licensing authorities will have the power to require a master owner or charterer who is named to provide any information they ask for. Failure to do so will constitute an offence.
The schedule allows licensing authorities to apply licence conditions to restrict the number of boats fishing in any one area or restrict fishing for specified species at certain times of the year. The licensing authorities have the ability to make arrangements for any licensing functions to be carried out by others on their behalf.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
Penalties for offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The purpose of the clause is to set out the penalties that can be applied for access and licensing offences in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Offences by bodies corporate etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the offences that apply to bodies corporate and the officers that have committed them through consent, connivance or negligence. It makes it clear that “officer” means a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in one of those capacities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Jurisdiction of court to try offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The effect of the clause is that, where an offence under the Bill has been committed, proceedings can be taken against individuals in any part of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause introduces schedule 4, which sets out the consequential amendments arising from the new access and licensing provisions introduced in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Access and licensing: minor and consequential amendments
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 57, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
This amendment removes the power to extend section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976 (which is repealed by paragraph 3(1) of this Schedule) to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Victoria Prentis
These are technical amendments. Schedule 4 repeals the current regime that would manage access of foreign fishing boats to British waters through the use of designation orders. These amendments ensure that that regime and the designation orders are also repealed in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—with their agreement, of course. amendments commend the I to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
This is a completely uncontroversial amendment, which we are happy to support. However, I am keen to understand from the Minister why the measure was not included in the original Bill and is being proposed as a Government amendment, because that removes the ability for others to have time to consider the implications.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question—I was not involved in the creation of the Bill—but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details. I suspect that it was not spotted.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 63, line 14, at end insert—
“‘temporary foreign vessel licence’ means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks;”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Victoria Prentis
This group of amendments enables the four UK fishing administrations to issue licences to foreign vessels in a shortened timespan, if it should prove necessary to do so.
The preferred system of licensing is that, should access be granted, the UK and the EU, Norwegian or Faroese licensing authorities would exchange lists of vessels wishing to fish in each other’s waters. Following relevant checks, the lists would be validated and the UK would issue licences to individual vessels. That process would be undertaken by the Marine Management Organisation, acting as our single issuing authority.
That will necessarily take some time and there is a risk that the delivery of fishing licences to vessel owners will be delayed. The impact would be that vessels from the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands would not be able to fish in our waters at the start of any fishing agreement.
I stress that this is very much a contingency solution to provide maximum flexibility for the UK licensing authorities. The aim would be to have full licences ready to issue for all individual vessels at the start of the fishing year, if a negotiated outcome on access has been reached. As a contingency, accepting that that will not always be possible, we have devised the new mechanism. It in no way undermines the principle that any foreign vessels that we allow to fish in our waters must be licensed and must follow the same rules as our vessels. The only difference between the systems is about who is informed about the granting of a licence and the time in which it can be processed.
Luke Pollard
The amendments pick up on one theme I have raised with the Minister around the difference between a hard copy and an electronic licence. That relates to the experience of British fishers in particular and the MMO’s licensing arrangements. As we discussed earlier, arrangements have changed in relation to the covid procedures, particularly in relation to the carrying of a hard copy versus an electronic copy. My reading of the amendment is that it provides a different service and puts a different requirement on foreign fishers from UK fishing boats.
Current UK fishing licence conditions, including conditions 6.1a and 6.1b, require UK fishing boats to carry a hard copy of their licence on board, or to be able to produce it at a time and place requested by the regulator or their agent, which in most cases in England is the Royal Navy, within five days. This amendment seeks to make an electronic version a permanent solution for foreign boats, but not for UK boats.
I understand that we have seen changes with the covid situation. I hope the Minister has effectively announced that the licence will now be electronic for all UK boats. She may need to bring forward a statutory instrument to adjust the regulations after the covid regulations are removed. My understanding of the covid regulations is that they will all go and we will revert back to the pre-covid regulations, which would require a new statutory instrument to be brought forward. That would be a welcome move because it would put UK fishers on a level playing field with foreign fishers.
With this amendment, foreign fishers get a better service than UK fishers, outside the current covid regulations. I am concerned about that, so I shall be grateful if the Minister will set out how that would work, particularly regarding enforcement and the difficulties of obtaining signal while at sea, in order to demonstrate to an enforcement vessel during a stop that a vessel has an electronic licence if it does not have a hard copy.
We know there have been difficulties in the past with foreign boats fishing in our waters without a licence and not being checked. The Minister will probably be aware of the case of the Dutch-registered Friesian that was scalloping and landing in and out of UK ports without a licence, before it was finally checked by the French, who took it to task. That was a number of years ago and it is extraordinary that steps have not been taken to address that level of enforcement since then. There is a point to make about both UK and foreign fishing boats being regulated in a similar way.
I realise that the approach that the Minister has taken in the past is to say that other nations regulate their own boats. However, when fishing in our waters, using permissions granted by the UK Government or UK fisheries authorities, there should be a similar approach, whether the boat is British-based or foreign-based.
Victoria Prentis
To answer the point directly about whether we are making it easier for foreign boats than for UK boats, that it is not the case. If access is granted, all the facts in the list will be checked and validated by the single issuing authority, devolved Administration or Crown dependency. That would happen regardless of the licensing mechanism used. That is a temporary solution. Permanent licences will be needed, and will be issued to individual licence holders as soon as they can be processed.
I have had confirmation that the MMO does not require physical licences, but the licence is required to be available to be shown on a boat, either on a phone, by email or by whatever is easiest for the licence holder. I do not believe that further legislation is required. For the purposes of the Fisheries Bill, we need to crack on. When I get back to the office I will check whether further legislation is required, but I do not believe that that is the case.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendments made: 30, in schedule 4, page 63, line 23, after “words”, insert—
“(i) after ‘A licence’ insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) ”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 63, line 40, leave out “this regulation” and insert “paragraphs (1) and (2)”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 63, line 44, leave out from “charterer;” to end of line 47 and insert—
“(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.
(2B) A temporary foreign vessel licence shall be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Welsh Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.
(2C) In paragraph (2B), ‘the relevant person’, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 64, line 10, after “licence”, insert
“, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 64, line 21, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in the heading, for ‘Delivery’ substitute ‘Granting’;
(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(c) in paragraph (3)—
(i) after ‘A licence’ insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) for ‘a nominee’s’ substitute ‘an’;
(iii) for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic means at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(3B) A notice communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall be treated as given immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.
(3C) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2B) shall be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’;
(e) in paragraph (5) (in each place it occurs), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 64, line 27, leave out from “paragraph (a)” to end of line 28 and insert—
“(i) after ‘2(1)’ insert ‘or (2B)’;
(ii) omit ‘, and a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b),’;
(iii) for ‘delivered or given’ substitute ‘granted’;”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 65, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) after that definition insert—
‘“temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 65, line 40, after “words”, insert—
“(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) ”.
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 65, line 43, at end insert—
“(ba) after that paragraph insert —
‘(1A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Scottish Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.
(1B) In paragraph (1A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.’”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 66, line 3, leave out from “notices)” to end of line 4 and insert—
“(a) in the heading, for ‘Delivery’ substitute ‘Granting’;
(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(c) in paragraph (3)—
(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) for ‘a nominee’s’ substitute ‘an’;
(iii) for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(3B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 3(1A) is to be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’;
(e) in paragraph (5) (in both places), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 66, line 4, at end insert—
“(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices to have effect), in paragraph (a)—
(a) after ‘3(1)’, insert ‘or (1A)’;
(b) for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 41, page 66, line 30, at end insert—
“(ba) for the definition of ‘notice’ substitute—
‘“notice” means a notice of variation, suspension or revocation of a licence;’;”.
This amendment updates the definition of “notice” in the Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) Regulations 2012 to reflect other changes to those regulations made in this Schedule.
Amendment 42, in schedule 4, page 66, line 44, at end insert—
“‘temporary foreign vessel licence’ means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 43, in schedule 4, page 66, line 46, leave out paragraph (a) to paragraph (c) on page 67 and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (1)—
(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) for the words from ‘the owner’ to the end substitute ‘an appropriate recipient (“P”)’;
(b) after that paragraph insert—
‘(1A) In paragraph (1) “an appropriate recipient” means—
(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a relevant fishing boat—
(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or
(ii) a nominee of the owner or charterer;
(b) in relation to a licence or a notice, relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.’;
(c) in paragraph (2), after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence, ’;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert —
‘(3A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Marine Management Organisation or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.
(3B) In paragraph (3A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.’;
(e) omit paragraph (8).”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 44, in schedule 4, page 67, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) In regulation 4 (time at which licences are delivered and notice given)—
(a) in the heading and paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’;
(b) after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated as described in regulation 3(3A) is treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’;
(c) in paragraph (7) (in both places), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.
(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices have effect), in paragraph (a), for ‘delivered’ substitute ‘granted’.”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 45, in schedule 4, page 68, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) after that definition insert—
‘“temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.’”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 46, in schedule 4, page 68, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (1)—
(i) after ‘A licence’, insert ‘, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,’;
(ii) omit ‘Northern Ireland’;
(iii) for the words from ‘the owner or charterer of the boat’ to the end substitute ‘an appropriate recipient’;
(b) in paragraph (2), after ‘A licence’, insert ‘(other than a temporary foreign vessel licence)’;
(c) in paragraph (3), for the words from ‘the owner or charterer of the boat’ to the end substitute ‘an appropriate recipient’;
(d) after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) In paragraphs (1) to (4), “an appropriate recipient” means—
(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Northern Ireland fishing boat—
(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or
(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer;
(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by delivering it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Department or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.
(4C) In paragraph (4B), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.’”
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Amendment 47, in schedule 4, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
“(5) In regulation 4 (time when licences are delivered and notices given), after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence delivered as described in regulation 3(4B) is treated as delivered immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.’
(6) In regulation 5 (time when licences, variations, suspensions or revocations have effect), in paragraph (a), after ‘3(2)’, insert ‘or (4B)’.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment is one of a group of amendments that introduces an expedited process for granting temporary licences to foreign fishing boats by communicating them electronically to the European Commission (or, in the case of a non-EU fishing boat, the relevant regulatory authority) and publishing them on the web.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 4, page 68, line 22, at end insert—
“Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019
22 The Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/507 (W. 117)) (which has not come into force) is revoked.
Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019
23 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/500 (W. 116)) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
24 The Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/523) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019
25 The Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/87) (which has not come into force) is revoked.
Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
26 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/88) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019
27 The Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/345) (which has not come into force) is revoked.”
This amendment revokes various statutory instruments that have not come into force, and were made as part of contingency planning in case the Bill was not passed before IP completion day.
The amendment, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, revokes contingency legislation made in March 2019—wasn’t that fun?—in the absence of the Fisheries Bill and in anticipation of leaving the EU on 29 March 2019, as was originally expected. I do not think I need to say anything further at this point. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
We spent a lot of time on these fisheries statutory instruments, and concerns were raised by Labour at the time as to whether we would need to revisit them—a point that the Minister at the time, although not this Minister, refuted. It turns out that the Government were incorrect and the Opposition were correct, as we are repeating activities here. This again underlines the importance of proper time for scrutiny and getting things right before pushing through a legislative programme. Taking greater care would have improved the outcomes and avoided our needing this Government amendment to revoke the SIs.
Indeed, the question is: why were the SIs not revoked in the original Bill, rather than as a result of a Government amendment? That pattern of behaviour—last-minute changes to things that were rushed—is concerning and makes me worry about the effectiveness of the legislation being passed if things are rushed in this way.
Victoria Prentis
I do not think I need to respond to that in detail. The SIs are not different from the provisions of the Bill. As I said, I am sure that the work of the earlier Committees has in fact fed into this excellent Bill, which I have absolutely no doubt about commending to the House.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 69, line 21, at beginning insert—
“(1) Regulations made under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A of that Act) in relation to licences under section 4 of that Act have effect on and after the coming into force of paragraph 6(2) as if they were made under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
This is a technical amendment clarifying the transitional provisions applying on the transition from the licensing regime in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to the licensing regime in the Bill.
This is another technical amendment. In clarifying the licensing regime as it applies to foreign vessels, parliamentary counsel were of the view that a specific transitional provision might be sensible. The amendment clarifies the transitional provisions applying on the transition from the licensing regime in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967—my favourite—to the licensing regime in the Bill. It is a technical amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.
Luke Pollard
I just note for the record that this change has been included as a Government amendment, not as part of the original Bill. I am concerned that other things have been missed and not included.
Luke Pollard
The Minister is shaking her head. It is good to have that on the record. When we come to future SIs that take out bits that have been missed, because of the pace at which the Government are going, that can be correctly quoted back at whichever Minister is in the role at the time.
The Chair
I am not sure whether a shaking of the head puts the Minister in jail, but I will leave that to be decided in a future debate.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I think what we are all learning, Sir Charles, is the extraordinarily complex and interrelated nature of the legislation in this area. I am sure we can always continue to improve on it, but I am very proud of the Bill.
The schedule amends UK legislation in consequence of the access and licensing provisions introduced in the Bill. The matters covered are access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats, the licensing of British fishing boats and transitional provisions. In particular, section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976, which sets out the current law on access by foreign boats, is repealed, as is the secondary legislation made under that section.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24
Power of Secretary of State to determine fishing opportunities
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 24, page 16, line 14, leave out “may determine” and insert “must determine”.
This amendment makes it compulsory for the Secretary of State to make a determination relating to fishing opportunities.
Labour’s amendments to clause 24 relate to the Secretary of State’s function of setting the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by fishing boats, both British and foreign, and the days that they may spend at sea during a specified period. Further to the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, this amendment seeks to make that an affirmative rather than a negative process.
Victoria Prentis
The current drafting of clause 24 gives a statutory power to the Secretary of State to determine UK fishing opportunities. The power may be exercised only where necessary to comply with the UK’s international obligations. Although most determinations are likely to be made to implement any obligations resulting from negotiations with other states, the Secretary of State could also make a determination to implement the UK’s sustainable fishing duties under international law. A determination may cover fishing effort as well as quota.
Amending the power would make the scope of the Secretary of State’s function uncertain. If it became obligatory to make a determination, would that duty apply to non-quota stocks or to stocks that are wholly located within devolved areas? I am concerned that my colleagues in the devolved Administrations would not welcome that. I assure the hon. Lady that, through the Fisheries Bill, there will be greater transparency of how we manage and allocate quota in the UK through the publication of the Secretary of State’s determination of UK fishing opportunities, which will be laid before Parliament. Given that explanation, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 24, page 16, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
“(a) the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use the British catch quota;
(b) the maximum number of days that British fishing boats or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use the British catch quota may spend at sea.”
This amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught, or of the maximum number of days at sea.
I believe that the amendment brings us one step closer to taking back control of our waters. We should have control over what non-UK boats do in our waters, including how much fish they can catch. As hon. Members know from our lengthy discussions on these matters, the Opposition are keen to ensure that the sustainability of our environment and our fish stocks are fundamental to fisheries management, and that our small British fishers and their coastal communities see the greatest possible benefit from fishing opportunities and redistributed quotas.
The amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State for the maximum quantity of sea fish that can be caught and the maximum number of days that can be spent at sea. It seeks to ensure that foreign fishing vessels are not exempt from the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction. In our efforts to ensure that we have a sustainable and growing UK fishing industry, the British Government should be able to set limits for all boats operating in our waters to protect UK fish stocks and ensure the survival of our UK fishing industry.
Victoria Prentis
We do not think that this amendment is necessary, as foreign fishing boats do not hold any rights to use British catch or effort quota. UK quota is allocated only to vessels registered and licensed in the UK. It is, of course, true that the ultimate beneficial owners of some UK fishing businesses are foreign. This is because UK fishing companies and their assets can be bought and sold like any other company in any other industry, but no foreign-registered fishing boat has the right to use our quota, nor will they in future. Any foreign fishing boat permitted to fish in UK waters in future would fish against its own state’s quota. Given that the amendment would not be effective in practice, I ask that it be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 24, page 16, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) No determination of effort quota under subsection (1)(b) may be made until the completion of a trial for the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods used, documentation methods used and any other relevant considerations that demonstrates that there is no evidence that such a determination—
(a) might cause a detriment to the achievement of any of the fisheries objectives;
(b) might cause the maximum sustainable yield of any stock to be exceeded;
(c) might reduce the accuracy of the recording of catches;
(d) might increase the risk of danger to the crew of fishing boats.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State making a determination of effort quota until it has been shown not to cause adverse impacts through a days at sea trial.
Amendment 114 would require the Secretary of State to commit to a days at sea trial to ensure the effort quota is not harmful to the fisheries objectives, the state of fish stocks or boat crew members. Days at sea or effort quotas should be the result of careful planning and consideration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said on Second Reading:
“Fish stocks are a finite resource, yet fishing quotas are being set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels year on year. Estimates suggest that restoring fish populations would not only safeguard our marine life, but lead to £244 million a year for the industry and create more than 5,000 jobs.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 96.]
I cannot stress enough the need for quotas to closely follow scientific guidance so that fish stocks are not depleted further. With this amendment, the Opposition are calling on the Secretary of State to complete trials on
“the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods”
and “documentation methods used” before making a determination of fishing opportunities. This would ensure that effort quotas do not negatively impact the achievement of any of the fisheries objectives under clause 1 of the Bill, exceed the maximum sustainable yield of any stocks, reduce the accuracy of the recording of catches, or put the lives of fishers at risk. I do not believe it is too much to ask of the Government that they commit to a trial that ensures the sustainability of our stocks and the industry.
If the Minister is confident that the trial would find that an effort quota is not harmful, there is nothing to fear or oppose in having it take place, and ensuring the matter can be concluded with its findings. Conversely, if it is the case that the effort quota is harmful to the fisheries objectives, the state of the fish stocks or the boat crew members, I am sure the Minister would not want that harm to continue. As I have said, the amendment simply commits the Secretary of State to undertake a days at sea trial to ensure that we are not causing long-term harm to the industry and our fish stocks. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to do so.
Victoria Prentis
There is already a long-standing effort scheme in place for some shellfish and all demersal fish in the western waters, which will become retained UK law. To effectively manage the western waters effort regime in future, we may need the Secretary of State determination to vary effort baselines in response to the latest scientific evidence or, of course, the outcome of annual fisheries negotiations. I am concerned that the amendment would hamper our ability to improve the western waters regime. Requiring no evidence to be found seems unlikely to be achieved through the pilot, so I suggest that the effect of this amendment would be to stop the effective use of effort as a way of determining fishing opportunities in future.
Luke Pollard
We have not spent as much time discussing effort during the passage of this Bill as we did during the course of the last Bill. One reason for that is that Ministers subsequently committed to undertake days at sea trials, and there have been discussions among various ports as to which ones would undertake those trials. As the Minister will know, Plymouth is one of those ports; it is keen to undertake the trials, and with a very active council on fisheries matters and the shadow Secretary of State representing the area, that would be the perfect opportunity to prove or disprove whether this works. Is it still the Government’s intention to hold those days at sea trials, and if so, would they be a substitute for what the amendment seeks to provide?
Victoria Prentis
Given the specific nature of this clause, I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in the way he would like me to. What we are talking about here is the effort trial involving some quota stocks, and without further time to check what is envisaged in any Plymouth trial, I do not want to categorically rule it in or out.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Whether it is a Plymouth trial, a Fraserburgh trial or a Grimsby trial, the concept is of a series of trials to look at days at sea and effort-based fishing, beyond the stocks that already have effort-based regimes in place. That was an important concession that the Government made after the pausing of the last Fisheries Bill. If the Minister does not know the status of those trials, perhaps she could write to the Opposition to set out those details. It is important that we have clarity on that.
Victoria Prentis
As far as I am concerned, we are very keen to make the scientific evidence and the baselines that we use as good as possible. I think the hon. Gentleman is aware of the work that is carrying on in that regard. However, we do need the flexibility to respond to changing science. I am in no way denigrating the pilot schemes, which are important and ongoing. This is probably, again, not a matter for this amendment, but something that we will continue to discuss for many years.
The problem with the amendment is that it would stop the effective use of effort as a way of determining fishing opportunities. I am not saying that we do not need the science—of course we do, and we need pilots to give us that science—but I do not want this to prevent us from using a precautionary approach to fisheries management where that is appropriate.
I am concerned that the amendment would put fisheries and their management at risk up and down the country, so I expect it will be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 24, page 16, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must ensure that a baseline stock assessment has been made for all non-quota species by 2030 and must report on progress on an annual basis.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gather a baseline stock assessment for those stocks that are not subject to catch limits.
Amendment 115 calls for a baseline stock assessment to be made for all non-quota species by 2030, and requires an annual report on progress. I believe the amendment is vital to ensuring the environmental and economic sustainability of our non-quota fish stocks. As I hope we all acknowledge, the absence of comprehensive data, even on quota species, has led to considerable issues that could threaten the long-term future of the industry and the marine environment itself. Overfishing is only one of the problems caused.
To ensure that the objectives in the Bill are met, the amendment calls for a baseline stock assessment to be made for all non-quota species by 2030 and an annual report on progress.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The hon. Lady is talking about a specific point in the trophic pyramid of the ecosystem. She is asking for an assessment of all non-stock species, but is that down to the nudibranchs on the rocks? I can see certain practical challenges with that, even though it is just fish.
Katherine Fletcher
Okay. The trophic pyramid does not allow—just because it has a backbone—for it to be at that point in the ecosystem because it is called a fish in biology. I wonder whether there are unintended consequences of the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
We hope that there will not be unintended consequences, but the amendment speaks to those fish that we actually go out and fish. I hope that clarifies the point.
As such, it seems that baseline stock assessments and annual reporting of progress on this matter are essential if we are to ensure that informed decisions can be made to protect the future of all non-quota species and the fishers who catch them. We know that many of these species are under great pressure. A deficiency in the data can be an excuse for fishing unsustainably. We cannot allow ourselves to plead ignorance, when the important step within this amendment has the potential to prevent such mistakes being made, which we know would be an environmental and economic disaster for the communities that rely on our fish stocks.
The Chair
Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Sorry, I call the Minister. I am sure it would be the Minister’s pleasure for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Victoria Prentis
It would indeed be our pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn, because we think it is disproportionately burdensome, though we agree it is well-intentioned and we absolutely agree that good data is key to making good fisheries management decisions. We also accept that we have too many data-poor stocks, particularly for non-quota stocks, but there are a number of practical issues with the amendment that we think would cause us difficulties.
Fisheries management plans in the Bill require fisheries authorities to specify the actions to assess the status of the stocks covered, or explain how the stocks will be managed sustainably in the absence of sufficient data. Our progress with those plans will be reported on every three years. Many non-quota stocks occur in the waters managed by the devolved Administrations. Most of the functions of gathering that information will be for the DAs, not the Secretary of State. I am concerned about that aspect of this amendment, and I again ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 24, page 16, line 43, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State may also determine, for such year or other period as may be specified in the determination, the maximum number of different descriptions of sea fish that may be caught, tagged and released, for the purposes of gathering data to aid scientific study, by those engaged in recreational fishing.”
This amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to determine a ‘catch, tag and release’ quota for recreational fishing for the purposes of gathering data to aid scientific study.
As outlined with reference to amendment 115, the absence of comprehensive data on our fish stocks inhibits our ability to ensure that we manage our fisheries in a way that is environmentally and economically sustainable. Amendment 116 would give the Secretary of State the power to determine a catch, tag and release quota for our recreational fishers. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who is serving on the Committee, referred to each fishing boat as a “floating science laboratory”. I could not agree more. Fishers are, absolutely, experts in their industry. We must not ignore their knowledge and ability to gather data. In fact, I would argue that they should have a much bigger role in the formation of policy decisions, because they bring to the table not only expertise but an unparalleled passion for ensuring the future survival of the UK fishing industry.
In bringing recreational fishers into much-needed work gathering data on our fish stocks, the amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to allow recreational fishers to assist in the gathering of data on the state of our fish stocks and help scientists to provide up-to-date information and advice to fisheries authorities. In doing so, the Secretary of State would be providing a boost to recreational fishing, while allowing it to play its role in ensuring the sustainability of our fish stocks and better fisheries management for our commercial operators.
Since 2015, huge Atlantic bluefin tuna have appeared late each summer in UK waters. That is an exciting new development for UK fishers. Until the 1950s, we had a thriving recreational bluefin tuna fishery that operated out of Whitby and Scarborough. In the early 1960s, however, those fish disappeared completely from the far north-east Atlantic. That was down to a combination of factors, including long-time climatic cycle shifts and commercial overfishing of their prey species. But as of five years ago, long-term climatic cycles and recovery efforts had helped the Atlantic bluefin to become once again a regular seasonal visitor to our waters. Recreational fishers could take part in its global stock recovery programme. No longer do they have to travel to faraway places to fish that big game fish. Instead, catch and release would enable recreational fishers to aid scientific data gathering on non-quota species that are starting to be found in UK waters.
We have a real opportunity here to create world-class, sustainable and valuable live-release recreational fisheries. The amendment is not just about protecting fish stocks for environmental and conservationist reasons, although that is important. It is about the future prosperity of our fishers and coastal communities, whom we want to see grow in the long as well as the short term.
The Chair
My alertness just improved during the discussion of this amendment. I am so sad that I cannot involve myself in this debate.
Victoria Prentis
As I know you know, Sir Charles, recreational angling within the UK is not currently subject to quota limitations, which the Government are concerned could incorrectly be interpreted as a reference to equivalent measures currently in place for commercial fishers. Discussions with the recreational sector have repeatedly highlighted the fact that it is not particularly interested in being subject to quota restrictions. Its interest is in restoring stocks and improving physical access, so that more successful recreational trips can take place. Indeed, the current industry proposal for a recreational scientific catch, tag and release bluefin tuna fishery is based on the premise that quota would not be required.
The amendment pre-empts the outcome of engagement with stakeholders and careful consideration of the best way to develop a regime, if we believe that that is the right way to go, for recovering species such as bluefin tuna. I have undertaken to meet the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and other colleagues who are interested, at some point before too long, to discuss bluefin tuna specifically. The Government feel that the amendment is unnecessary, as we already have broad powers in relation to scientific trials, data collection and quota allocation.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at the last minute and for agreeing to meet me, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and, perhaps in a different capacity, the Chair to discuss bluefin tuna. Will she address the point about the role of recreational fishers in helping to provide science? That was at the heart of what the shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, was saying. For data-deficient stocks in particular, and for stocks for which data is held but is poorly applied, recreational fishers—a group of people who love their fish and have really strong opinions on making fishing more sustainable—could provide an enormous benefit to Government science.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 24, page 17, line 8, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment would make the relevant regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The amendment would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. On the first day of the Committee, I spoke at length about the need for more parliamentary scrutiny. Since 2013, no significant progress has been made towards achieving maximum sustainable yield figures, which have languished at about 57% to 68% of stocks fished sustainably in the last seven years.
The powers granted under clause 24(10) give the Secretary of State the power to determine the number of days in a specified period that a boat may spend at sea. Regulations under that power will be affected by the varying technical conditions—from the stowing of fishing gear to entering the UK’s inshore waters or leaving a port—that may affect when a boat should be regarded as fishing. The calculation of what is meant by “a day at sea” is highly technical, so I firmly believe that we need more parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that effort quotas do not exceed scientific advice and damage the sustainability of our fish stocks.
Victoria Prentis
The Government consider that we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to react quickly, with secondary legislation, to make what are often technical amendments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the procedures for the delegated powers in the Bill, and said:
“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”
That Committee also published a report about the Bill on 26 February, and it did not change its views. It should also be noted that an identical amendment was debated and withdrawn in the other place. I therefore invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to determine the UK’s fishing opportunities, to comply with its international obligations. The Secretary of State will be able to set the maximum amount of seafish that may be caught by British fishing boats and the maximum number of days that they can spend at sea. The power would be used to set the level of total allowable catch for UK shared stocks, reflecting anything that we manage to negotiate. It could also be used to ensure our compliance with article 61 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.
The power relates therefore to the high-level function of determining UK fishing opportunities as a whole; it does not relate to the subsequent allocation of those opportunities to the different fisheries administrations, or indeed to their distribution to industry. Under the clause, the Secretary of State would also have the power to make negative resolution regulations about when time will be counted as time at sea for the purposes of the determination.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Duties relating to a determination of fishing opportunities
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 25, page 17, line 19, at end insert—
“(e) the public.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a public consultation prior to making or withdrawing a determination under section 24.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 118, in clause 25, page 17, line 24, at end insert—
“and stating what published scientific advice was used as the basis of the decision,”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state what scientific advice was used when making or withdrawing a determination under section 24.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak to both amendments. Amendment 117 calls for public consultation prior to the Secretary of State making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under clause 24. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that we need to restore public trust in fisheries management decisions and policy. For too long, the British public have had little say in what happens, with decisions made behind closed doors in Brussels. The feeling that decisions that affected the public were made by people far away who knew little about their lives and were not willing to listen has been incredibly powerful, and the frustration that that democratic deficit causes is real.
A public consultation would give the public, and particularly our coastal communities, a say in the fishing opportunities in UK waters. It would show that the Government want to give the public an opportunity to have their say and that they are committed to listening.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady talks about a democratic deficit, but do not many Members of Parliament represent coastal ports, and indeed are there not councillors on the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities? Do not we already have quite strong democratic accountability for the fishing industry and environmental concerns within Parliament and local authorities?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great authority on the subject. I guess that that argument could be applied to pretty much any public consultation. The idea of the amendment is that although, of course, people can come to their local MPs, who can make the case for them, they would be able to feed in directly on the specifics of fishing opportunities.
A public consultation would also, I believe, bring to light the current inequalities in the UK fishing fleet and give the public an opportunity to have their say on how to address bringing back prosperity to coastal communities. It would also give people the opportunity to ensure that the Government and fisheries authorities stay true to the objectives outlined in clause 1—most importantly, the sustainability objective. The British public are increasingly concerned about the climate emergency and the efforts being made to protect our environment. If we are to restore the confidence of the public that the British Government are in complete control not only of our maritime future, but of the conservation and protection of our marine environment, we must involve them in our fisheries management decisions. I believe we should give them a voice, and commit to listening.
Amendment 118 would require the Secretary of State to state what scientific advice was used when making or withdrawing a determination under clause 24. As discussed earlier, the scientific evidence objective requires fisheries authorities to draw on
“the best available scientific advice”
in making their decisions. The Opposition have argued that only that evidence will lead to world-leading sustainable fisheries management.
For the purposes of accountability and effective scrutiny, it seems clear that when making such determinations under clause 24 the Secretary of State should identify the scientific evidence on which the decisions are based. Such decisions by the Secretary of State will have significant impacts on operators and coastal communities, and I do not believe that it would be improper for the Secretary of State to confirm the scientific basis of a decision.
Independent peer-reviewed science must form the basis of all fisheries management decisions. Sadly, we live a world where a minority scientific opinion—the opinion of those who deny the existence of a climate crisis, for example—can cast doubt on the majority of scientific data and advice. It is important that we know who the Government are turning to when they determine the allocation of fishing opportunities under clause 24.
Victoria Prentis
We are concerned about the practical implications of the amendment, as it could result in an unacceptable loss of time in getting access to fishing opportunities at the start of the calendar year. If public consultation were required it would have to take place after international negotiations, which could cause a significant delay. Fishermen would not be able to fish, because they would still be waiting for confirmation of quotas. For fisheries that operate primarily in the early part of the year, such as the mackerel fishery, that could be serious.
It is unclear what benefit public consultation at that stage would bring. The scientific advice, which the hon. Lady is right to mention as important, and which informs negotiation and quota setting, would have been published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea some months earlier. Discussions with industry and other stakeholders about quota setting would ordinarily take place in advance of negotiations, not afterwards.
Turning to amendment 118, the advice on the health and sustainability of fish stocks is already publicly available and is published each year. It is good international advice on the health of fish stocks and total allowable catches each year, and is available to all those who are interested in it. I am afraid I do not see what benefit the two amendments will bring, and I therefore ask that neither be pressed to a vote.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 26, page 17, leave out line 38.
This amendment would remove historical catch levels as a basis for distributing catch quotas and effort quotas.
Amendment 119 removes historical catch as a basis for allocating quotas. National authorities would no longer consider historical catch levels when distributing catch and effort quotas to fishing boats. Instead, they would prioritise environmental and local economic criteria. Removing historical catch levels as a criterion would help to end the unfair arrangement that British fishers suffered under the common fisheries policy.
This new system under which quotas are distributed on the basis of environmental and local economic criteria is likely to benefit small-scale sustainable fishers who belong to the UK small fishing fleet, because smaller boats provide more job opportunities to local communities. For every fish caught, small-scale fleets create far more jobs than their larger counterparts. In 2016, they landed 11% of fish by value in the UK but employed nearly half of all fishers. They are also better for the environment.
We have already discussed the impact of destructive fishing methods, including pulse beam trawling, which cause huge damage to the UK marine environments and ecosystems. In contrast to supertrawlers and larger boats, the vast majority of boats within the small-scale fleet use passive gears, which are more environmentally friendly. By removing historical catch from the list of criteria that a national authority must consider when allocating fishing opportunities, we would send a message to smaller boats that we believe in their economic potential and recognise the positive impact of job opportunities in coastal communities and the marine environments in which such boats operate.
I am aware that some colleagues will be concerned about the legality of removing historical catch as a basis for allocating quotas, but I reassure them that a challenge to a new system of quota allocation enshrined in an Act of Parliament would be unlikely to succeed. I have been assured that the new scenario of mandating quota reallocation in UK law would be compatible with domestic and international law.
Under this new approach, foreign-owned companies that control UK quota would have to work to keep it on the UK’s terms. They would have to fulfil the environmental and local economic criteria, demonstrating their commitment to sustainability and local employment. Our smaller fishing fleets remain the backbone of coastal communities across the country. It is time that they got their fair share of fishing opportunities.
Victoria Prentis
In Committee earlier this week, I explained that although fixed quota allocation units do not represent a permanent right to quotas, the High Court has recognised them as a property right, and it is not the Government’s intention to undermine the legal status of the existing quota regime at this stage. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 26, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
“(3A) When distributing English fishing opportunities, the Secretary of State may redistribute any fishing opportunities made available before IP completion day, and any such distribution and redistribution must be carried out according to social, environmental and local economic criteria following national and regional consultation from relevant stakeholder advisory groups, including representative groups from across the fishing fleet, scientists, and environmental groups.”
This amendment would allow the redistribution of existing fishing opportunities in England and would mean that such distribution and redistribution had to be carried out in accordance with certain criteria, following consultation.
Amendment 120 would allow the redistribution of existing English fishing opportunities. I stress that Labour’s amendments to clause 26 would not leave our largest fishing boats and those that are bigger than 10 metres in a position where they could no longer operate—far from it. We are calling for a redistribution of a small proportion of opportunities to the under-10 metre fishing fleet. Even a single-digit percentage redistribution of quotas would make a monumental difference to the lives of small fishers, who have been hit particularly hard by the covid-19 pandemic. If just 1% or 2% of the total catch was reallocated, that could increase by 25% what small boats can catch.
As I outlined earlier, for every fish caught, a small-scale fleet creates more jobs than their larger counterparts do. Despite landing only a tenth of the fish by value, they employ nearly half of all fishers. Of course, as we discussed, they create far more jobs on land than at sea. These small fishers are the backbone of the British fishing fleet. The future prosperity of our coastal communities is fundamentally dependent on these small-scale fishers. A small redistribution of the quota, which is clearly within the Government’s gift, would not cause significant damage to large-scale fishers, but it would fundamentally transform the prospects of our small fishers and their coastal communities. It would give them a platform to invest in new gear and boats and to hire more crew.
Labour is not calling for the redistribution of the quota to happen immediately. A phrased drawdown period would ensure that fishers could build up their capacity to meet the new quota allowances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said on Second Reading:
“Such rebalancing could easily be absorbed by the big foreign-owned boat operators within the current range of variation of total allowable catch”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 73.]
The amendment calls on the Secretary of State to consider the social, environmental and local economic criteria when distributing or redistributing existing English fishing opportunities, as well as to consult stakeholder advisory groups. As I mentioned in the debate on amendment 119, Labour believes that considering environmental and local economic criteria would benefit our small fishing fleet and, consequently, the seaside towns and villages they rely on. Amendment 120 asks the Government to grasp this opportunity to support our small English fishers and their communities.
Luke Pollard
I rise in support of the case that has just been laid out by my colleague the shadow fisheries Minister. There is an opportunity here to support our small boat fleet and to send a message about what type of fisheries we want to have after we leave the Brexit transition period at the end of the year. I believe the British public and those in our coastal communities where fishing has a presence want to see our small boat fleet supported in particular. That is the sentiment that comes from fishers and coastal communities in Plymouth and across the south-west and, indeed, when I visited Grimsby and Hull recently. They want to see the small boats in particular benefiting.
As the Minister knows, I am sceptical about whether more fish will appear in any negotiations, and that is why, regardless of whether more fish come or not, now or later or not at all—I hope they do, through zonal attachment rather than relative stability—the ability to redistribute even a small percentage of our current quota to the benefit of our smaller fishers could have a profound and positive impact on our coastal communities. It would support our small fishers, create more jobs and, in particular, provide an economic foundation for fishers to expand the number of boats, expand the workforce and invest in our port infrastructure.
I anticipate that the Minister will be less keen on this measure. However, the sentiment that has been articulated is sound and good and would deliver on much of the promise that many of our coastal communities want to see from a revised fisheries regime.
Victoria Prentis
I have absolutely no doubt that more fish will appear, or that we will be entitled to more fish at the end of this year. I absolutely agree with the sentiment of much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have an issue with the amendment.
The fisheries White Paper 2018 set out the Government’s policy on our existing quota—I rehearsed that point in the debate on the previous amendment. It is not our intention to undermine the legal status of the existing quota regime. We have also made it very clear, not least on Tuesday, that we will allocate additional quota differently. We will shortly consult on proposals for allocating English additional quota. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman at length when we do so.
There are some drafting issues with the amendment. For example, it is unclear what is meant by
“fishing opportunities made available before IP completion day”.
Obviously, fishing opportunities vary from year to year as stock conditions go up and down. It is unclear what is expected to be used as the baseline here. I am also concerned that the amendment seems to duplicate earlier parts of clause 26. Given that the Government have made absolutely clear that we do not intend to redistribute our existing share of FQA and that it is uncertain how the amendment would operate, I ask that it be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 26, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
“(3A) When distributing catch quotas for use by fishing boats, the national fisheries authorities may make provision for the pooling of catch quotas by two or more boats.
(3B) Before making provision for the pooling of catch quotas under subsection (3A), the national fisheries authorities must be satisfied that any pooling will lead to a reduction in the discard of catch, including bycatch.”.
This amendment would allow the national fisheries authorities to enable catch quota to be pooled by two or more boats in cases where doing so would avoid discards.
This probing amendment is intended to investigate the Government’s plans to deal with discards and bycatch. We know that in mixed fisheries in particular, there is the real problem of small boats not having a quota for the fish they are catching because of their inability to target species in a 100% accurate manner. The amendment argues for a greater pooling of an element of quota to avoid fishers getting into trouble, through no fault of their own, despite best efforts to avoid bycatch when catching species they have neither quota for nor the ability to discard over the side or land in an economic manner. It is intended not as the preferred solution but rather as an opportunity for the Minister to set out the options, because I am concerned that the current discards regime, introduced for all the right reasons with a huge amount of public support, does not support our fishers in achieving the right outcomes in support of their businesses or the regime’s intended environmental objectives.
I expect the Minister to take much issue with the wording of the amendment. I am less fussed about its wording and more fussed about the clarity of where she intends to take discard policy in the future.
Victoria Prentis
I am always fussed about the wording of amendments, but I would like to emphasise the important point that the Government remain fully committed to managing our stocks of fish sustainably and indeed to ending the wasteful practice of discarding.
Now that we have left the EU, we will develop a discards policy more tailored to us. It will have an emphasis on reducing the level of unintentional and unwanted bycatch through sustainable and selective fishing. The amendment is unnecessary because we already use quota pools in the way the amendment sets out. Most quota in England is managed by producer organisations. The exact management arrangements vary, but many do choose to operate with a quota pool, as set out in the amendment. The rest of the English fleet, which includes most of the smaller inshore vessels, fish from one of two quota pools that are managed by the MMO.
Luke Pollard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 26, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
‘(c) access for the purpose of recreational fishing, including by means of boats chartered for that purpose, to increased stock levels of recovering species.’.
This amendment would add access by recreational fishing to increased stock levels of recovering species to the list of things that national fisheries authorities must seek to incentivise when distributing catch quotas and effort quotas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 23, line 44, at end insert—
‘(1A) Prior to giving financial assistance under subsection (1)(i), the Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on how best to promote sustainable public access to recreational fishing opportunities, taking socioeconomic factors into account.
(1B) The consultation in subsection (1A) must include consideration of the use of boats that are chartered for recreational fishing.’.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on recreational fishing prior to providing financial assistance.
New clause 2—Recreational fishing—
‘(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the Secretary of State to consult with any person considered appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons representing the practice of recreational fishing, including those who charter boats for the purpose of recreational fishing.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act have—
(a) promoted recreational fishing, and
(b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of recreational fishing.
(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no more than 12 months after this section comes into force.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 81and 82 and new clause 2 are all about recreational fishing. Amendment 82 recognises the importance of recreational fishing to local economies across the UK and would call on national fisheries authorities to add access to recreational fishing to increase stock levels of recovering fish species in the distribution of catch and effort quotas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport outlined on Second Reading, recreational fishing matters to people’s identities and it now competes economically with commercial fishing in GDP terms. In oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee for the previous iteration of the Bill, Dr Carl O’Brien said:
“In future, we need to have a better understanding of recreational fishing. We cannot ignore it, but we have to come up with a policy where you balance commercial and recreational anglers”
and that
“regardless of whether they are selling their catch, they are competing with a commercial fishery…for the western Baltic cod, the catches of the recreational anglers are far in excess of the commercial fleet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 117, Q228.]
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to consider the interests of the recreational fishing fleet alongside commercial fishing interests when distributing extra quota that has come about through the efforts to restore fish stock. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing and to include representatives of the recreational fishing industry when conducting a consultation under any of the provisions of the Bill.
As I mentioned, recreational fishing makes a huge contribution to local economies across the UK. It is an incredibly popular activity enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people. Research recently published from surveys of sea anglers during 2016 and 2017 shows that about 800,000—1.6% of UK adults—went sea angling at least once a year, fishing for a total of 7 million days. Anglers spend on average more than £1,000 a year on their sport, resulting in sea angling having a total economic impact of between £1.5 billion and £2 billion. Sea angling supports about 15,000 jobs in the UK. It is important that we give the public and the industry an opportunity to have their say. Recreational angling and its contribution to coastal communities deserves more recognition in the Bill.
New clause 2 would ensure that the Bill supports our recreational industry. In a Committee evidence session on the previous iteration of the Bill, the Angling Trust argued that one of the great failures of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The new clause tries to correct that failure. As we take back control of our waters, we could do right by our sea anglers. We could recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user of, and a legitimate stakeholder in, fishing.
Amendment 81 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on recreational fishing before providing financial assistance. Clause 35 creates new powers for the Secretary of State to make grants or loans to the fishing and aquaculture industries. Labour welcomes the inclusion in the Bill of recreational fishing among the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State may give assistance. Our amendment would bring the Bill in line with new clause 2 and ensure that consultation on recreational fishing takes place prior to the provision of financial assistance.
Victoria Prentis
DEFRA absolutely recognises the benefits of recreational fishing to the nation’s health and economy; I know you do too, Sir Charles. I myself enjoy sea angling, as do other members of my family.
However, I will note at the beginning of this discussion that references to “fish activities” include both commercial and recreational fishing in this iteration of the Bill. So, it is fair to say that the Bill has been improved and it is good to see those activities being viewed as equal partners in what we are trying to do.
Quota is one of several possible mechanisms that could be explored in order to increase recreational anglers’ access to fish; we talked about that earlier. Other mechanisms could include technical measures, through which recreational fishers saw a significant increase in their access to sea bass between 2019 and 2020. We can also enable anglers and fishermen to play a greater role in scientific research, as we also discussed earlier, and that has been proposed with regard to bluefin tuna.
Clause 26 relates generally to the distribution of fishing opportunities. It is not just about the distribution of quota to commercial boats. It already ensures that environmental, social and economic factors are considered. On that basis, I believe that the current wording of clause 26, combined with the other work that we are doing on recreational access to fish, is sufficient to meet the hon. Lady’s objectives.
Turning to amendment 81, DEFRA’s recreational sea fishing forum brings together the recreational sector, regulators and policy makers to shape sea fishing policy. This forum met for the third time two days ago and it is providing a really useful mechanism for those in the sector to share their ideas and evidence.
DEFRA is also committed to engaging with stakeholders on the design and implementation of any future grant scheme, to ensure that we can best meet domestic priorities as well as Government objectives. On that basis, I do not think that it is necessary to include the express consultation requirement when consulting on future grant schemes.
Turning to new clause 2, by default in the Bill all provisions apply to recreational fishing as well as to commercial fishing, unless it is explicitly specified other- wise. Given the importance of recreational fishing, the Government will include policies on recreational fishing in the joint fisheries statement. Of course, fisheries management plans can take recreational fishing into account, where appropriate.
On that basis, I believe that we have sufficient existing provisions in the Bill and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I have heard what the Minister says. However, it is really important that we make sure that recreational fishing is seen as a valid and equal stakeholder. So I will not withdraw the amendment and I will press for a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
The clause was amended in the other place to set out the criteria for distributing UK fishing opportunities in the Bill, rather than by reference to retained EU law. The wording of the provision has been updated slightly to reflect UK drafting style, but the provision includes the same requirement for transparent and objective criteria that take into account environmental, social and economic factors.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Reservation of English fishing opportunities for new entrants and boats under 10 metres
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
As with many of the amendments made in the other place, the Government agree with the intention behind the clause, but disagree with the manner in which that intention is proposed to be delivered, therefore I seek for the clause not to stand part of the Bill.
The clause refers to new entrants, but it is not clear exactly what that means. A new entrant could refer to a new fishing boat owner, a new skipper or a new crew on board an existing boat, and those different groups may have different needs on joining the industry. New crews on fishing boats do not need any quota, but might need some training. Many under-10 metre vessels target non-quota stock such as shellfish, rather than quota species, so of course they will not need quota either. The lack of clarity about the scope of the clause makes it difficult to establish a baseline for deciding how much quota to give new entrants and, indeed, what data we need to collect and analyse.
Secondly, the clause does not consider the wider issues affecting new entrants. For example, to fish commercially against UK quota, a new entrant needs a British-registered fishing boat and a licence, of which there are a fixed number. Fishing requires a significant capital investment before someone can even go to sea; the cost of an average under-10 metre boat is significant. Reserving a proportion of quota for new entrants does not address that issue. No time limit has been set for how long someone would be classified as a new entrant, which also presents challenges about whether vessels would ever lose access to the reserve quota, how long before that happened and what quota they would then fish against if was removed.
The Government and Seafish are working in partnership with a range of training partners to offer apprenticeships across the UK on a range of subjects relevant to the seafood industry and maritime occupations. Apprenticeships and vocational qualifications in shellfish and fish processing are available, as are introductory courses on working in the commercial fishing industry, which I am pleased to say include mandatory training on safety at sea.
It is our intention to consult on using some of the additional quota that I am convinced is coming to us to provide increased fishing opportunities for under-10 metre vessels. That is absolutely an intention we share and feel passionately about. There will be more benefits for our fishing ports and coastal communities, but I am afraid, because of the drafting difficulties, I cannot support the clause.
Stephanie Peacock
Labour opposes the Minister’s proposal to remove clause 27, which was passed in the other place. We have not moved our amendments to the clause, given the Government’s intention to remove it, but we had hoped to encourage them and the Secretary of State to consider the impact on communities with high unemployment and on small and medium-sized enterprises when deciding fishing opportunities under clause 24 of the Bill.
We support the campaign by the Blue Marine Foundation, whose executive director said:
“The distribution of quota is long overdue for reform; it was a botched privatisation which is unfair to the majority of fishermen, who fish inshore, and has perverse environmental consequences. Now it must be unpicked.”
For too long the UK fishing quota has been dominated by huge, often foreign-owned, vessels that land their catch abroad. In May, a report by the BBC found that £160 million-worth of English quota is in the hands of vessels owned by companies based in Iceland, Spain and the Netherlands. That is more than half of the value of the English quota. The status quo needs to be changed to give smaller boats the lion’s share of the quota, and we do not need new powers to affect real change for our coastal communities. The Government have always had the power to redistribute share of the UK’s quota, but have chosen not to, despite small vessel owners facing severe financial hardship over the years.
Some 50% of the English quota is held by companies based overseas. At the same time, the small-scale fleet holds only 6%. It is a damning fact that the five largest quota holders control more than a third of the UK fishing quota. Four of them can be found on the Sunday Times rich list. It is clear that the current distribution of fishing opportunities is outdated and unfair. We should take this opportunity and the powers that we have to ensure that it is our small fishers and the UK coastal communities that benefit. If the Minister is seeking to remove the clause, how do the Government intend to deal with such inequality and give smaller fishers a fairer share of quota? The fishers who would benefit from a redistribution were some of the loudest voices during the Brexit referendum, who have long felt that their communities have been ignored. They are also the ones that have been hardest hit by the covid-19 pandemic. Many could not leave port, but their fixed costs remained the same. For some, the Government covid-19 grant came too late, and for many it was not enough to cover maintenance of their boats and port fees.
Our small fishing fleet deserves support from the Government. There has been a lot of talk about how leaving the EU is an opportunity for the UK to secure a fairer share of fishing opportunities for our own fleets. I ask that that principle of fairness is extended within our own fleets. As has already been mentioned, it would not only benefit the owners of under-10 boats, but our coastal communities, as for every fish caught the small-scale fleet creates more jobs than larger boats do. I firmly believe our UK small-scale fleet has the potential to lead the way towards the creation of a greener economy that is not only good for the environment, but creates more jobs at home.
Right now, the barriers for new entrants into the sector, and for small fishers struggling to make a living, are too high. Clause 27 would help to rejuvenate our fishing sector, encouraging more small fishers to join the industry, which, admittedly, has a relatively older profile than others, and would create more opportunities for people with exciting ideas about how to make UK fishing more sustainable, innovative and profitable. The Bill has the potential to become a vehicle for a fair redistribution of quota allocations, which would be transformational for many of England’s small fishers and their communities. Are the Government creating a system that would encourage new entrants into the sector, and redistributing fishing opportunities to the under-10 metre fleet to the benefit of not only small fishers but the communities they rely on?
I also want to probe the Minister and ask her to explain in greater detail what she has said about the proportion of quota that is already guaranteed to the under-10 metre fleet. Will the Government commit to reviewing the current allocation of quota and from here on consider the case for increasing allocations of fishing opportunities to the under-10 metre fleet on a yearly basis?
Last week the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation gifted an extra quota to the under-10 metre fleet. This was referenced on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who said the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs supported this distribution to help keep the Northern Irish fleet economically viable. Will the Minister consider supporting a similar allocation to English fishers who own under-10 metre boats to help them get back on their feet after the past year of uncertainty?
The clause seeks to create a better, fairer framework of quota allocation. Better quota decisions will support our fishing industry, widening employment and making fishing an attractive career to young people. Simply put, in supporting our small fishers, we will support our coastal communities. This is a once in a generation chance to shape our fishing industry for the better. Labour Members will therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove clause 27.
Luke Pollard
I rise in support of this argument and also to pick up on something that the Minister said in her remarks. She argued that it is expensive to invest in new boats and used that as a reason against the Bill. She argued against the amendment, and then went on to argue that she expects more fish. She cannot have it both ways. She is arguing in support of more quota for under-10s, but that is the intention behind the clause. It gives more quota, which is the ability for fishers to invest in their new fleet. Rather than it being a reason not to invest, it actually supports the smaller fleet.
Victoria Prentis
I am not sure I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought, but I hope I can reassure him and answer some of the questions of the hon. Member for Barnsley East. In England, no decisions have yet been taken about how to allocate any additional fishing opportunities, but consideration will certainly be given to whether that can be used to assist new entrants to enter the profession. The point that I made about fishing vessels was that the boats themselves are very expensive and are a significant barrier to new fishermen coming through.
I said earlier that we feel that a minimum quota allocation would not be the best approach to alleviate the challenges faced by new entrants. I also said that new entrants might not need quota, depending on what they intend to fish. Shellfish, for example, which is a very profitable species, is non-quota. I am concerned that minimum quota could cause other unintended problems. Setting a blanket minimum quota means that other fishers will receive less than they currently do.
We are extremely keen to safeguard the industry’s future by encouraging new entrants. We will be looking carefully at how we can best work with the industry to encourage that as part of our work to reform our fisheries management regime as the transition period comes to an end.
The Government recognise the importance of the under-10 fleet. Since 2012, quota that has not been fished, leased, gifted or swapped by producer organisations has been realigned, and we have managed to deliver a 13% increase in quota for the under-10 fleet. As I said earlier, a significant proportion of the catch caught by the sector is made up of non-quota species such as lobster and crabs. We are very keen to support industry initiatives to help that fleet, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House to do that in the future.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 28, page 18, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3A) The national fisheries authorities must publish, on at least an annual basis, a comparison of the number of each species of sea fish caught and—
(a) the catch quota for that species for that year, and
(b) the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) reference point for that species for that year.
(3B) The publication under subsection (3A) must, where the number of sea fish caught in a calendar year has exceeded the figures in paragraphs (3A)(a) or (3A)(b), note the impact on fish stocks that exceeding that figure is thought to have had.”
This amendment would require the publication of the quantity of fish caught, by species, to enable the impact on the sustainability of fish stocks to be assessed.
Amendment 125 would require fisheries authorities to publish annually data on the state of fish stocks. As hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have often said, the deficiencies in data about our UK fish stocks must be improved. A lack of information results in the over-setting of quota limits, which directly leads to over-fishing. That harms not just our marine ecosystems but the future prosperity and survival of our UK fishing industry. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State shares my concerns about that and shares our aspiration to ensure that the deficiencies in our data are addressed.
Annually publishing the data on the state of fish stocks would mean that we are better able to ensure the effective monitoring of the progress being made in addressing those deficiencies. That would inform and enable greater scrutiny of decisions. We would be better able to publicly assess the sustainability of our fish stocks and understand the effect that they are having on each species and what that means for our marine environment and coastal communities. As we discussed earlier, we should not fear greater transparency or scrutiny. That would lead to greater progress and better decisions about our fisheries management, which will only benefit our fishers and their communities.
In his speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the UK is
“a world leader in promoting sustainable fisheries”
and that we
“can show the world that a better approach can deliver more balance, profitable fisheries and an enhanced marine environment.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 70.]
If we are to demonstrate the success of the UK fisheries management regime, it must be done in a format that allows for careful scrutiny and public debate, to celebrate where we succeed and to challenge and change where things should be improved.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I am going to behave like a Government lawyer again and say the intent behind the amendment is absolutely clear, but the wording is ambiguous. It is not clear what sort of comparison is expected. The amendment focuses on consideration of species, but this does not make sense where different stocks of the same species are managed separately in different sea basins.
The MMO publishes the UK sea fisheries annual statistics report, which provides detailed information on our fisheries, including data on catches, quota uptake and value. The ICES publishes its annual advice on stocks, including advice on sustainable harvest rates. The advice indicates the status of stocks, taking into account previous harvesting. The Government routinely report on the outcome of annual fisheries negotiations, which includes providing figures for the number of TACs set at or below their maximum sustainable yield, and this is absolutely something that I undertake to continue to do in the future.
Our fisheries management plans will have indicators to assess their performance, and every three years the joint fisheries statement will report on how our plans have been implemented and how the stocks have been affected. The Government’s intention is to provide the necessary information through the new and existing mechanisms, so that everybody is clear about how we are getting on with delivering sustainable fisheries. I therefore say that the amendment is unnecessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I think we are going to go from a trot to a canter now.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Even the Whip on the Treasury Bench is beginning to smile, so we are approaching a denouement.
Clauses 31 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Changes in Immigration Rules
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
We have made changes to the immigration rules which will introduce the student and child student routes to replace the tier 4 (general) and tier 4 (child) routes.
The changes are being introduced to give effect to the Government plan to create a global visa system which applies equally to all individuals coming to the UK to work or study, including EEA nationals, with the exception of Irish nationals.
The student and child student routes, collectively referred to as the student routes, are for both European economic area (EEA) and non-EEA nationals who wish to come to the UK for the purpose of study. The routes are the first to be introduced as part of the new points-based immigration system, and the first to be simplified in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report, “Simplifying the Immigration Rules”, to which the Government responded on 25 March 2020. We have consulted the Simplification of the Immigration Rules Review Committee, which represents several external stakeholders, on the drafting of the simplified rules. The immigration rules will eventually be consolidated in the new style.
As part of the new simplified style, we are introducing new rules on English language and finance—which will only apply to the new student and child student routes at this stage—with the intention of creating rules on themes which apply across several routes. These thematic rules include changes to:
ensure applicants only need to prove the required level of English language to the Home Office once;
update the majority speaking English language country list to include Malta and Ireland (where, for example a non-Irish national has a degree from an Irish university they can rely on this to show their English language ability);
allow applicants who have gained GCSE/A-level or Scottish higher in English while at school in the UK to rely on this to prove their English language ability, replacing the ability of child students to rely on six months in the UK to prove English;
no longer require applicants who have met the maintenance requirement on their current route to meet it again if they have been supporting themselves in the UK for more than a year;
allow applicants to rely on electronic bank statements;
allow applicants to show they meet maintenance requirements by relying on a wider range of accounts.
EEA nationals are subject to transitional arrangements until the transition period ends on 31 December. An EAA or Swiss national who makes an application in the UK under the new student rules before 1 January 2021 will have their application rejected since they continue to have freedom of movement under EU law and are entitled to apply to the EU settlement scheme. EEA nationals who apply under the student rules from outside the UK will only be granted leave that commences on or after 1 January 2021, provided they meet the requirements of the route.
The list of countries whose nationals may submit reduced documentary evidence (formerly appendix H) has been updated to add all the countries which form part of the EEA and Switzerland. Appendix 15 of the immigration rules will be deleted and replaced with a new appendix ATAS which sets out requirements and conditions for the academic technology approval scheme (ATAS). EEA and Swiss nationals, and nationals of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and South Korea will be exempted from having to apply for an ATAS certificate in order to study certain sensitive subjects in the UK.
The tier 4 (general) and tier 4 (child) routes will be closed to new applications after 08.59 on 5 October 2020. References to tier 4 have either been deleted from the immigration rules or amended where appropriate to reflect the new student and child student rules. All references to students or child students in the new rules must be read as including references to people who currently hold leave as tier 4 migrants, including in part 9, appendix AR and appendix W. All student and child student applications, including dependant of a student applications, which are made at or after 09.00 on 5 October 2020 will be decided in accordance with the new student rules, even where they are accompanied by a confirmation of acceptance for studies which was issued under the tier 4 rules and policy in place before 09.00 on 5 October.
[HCWS445]
Coronavirus: Renters
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I wish to update the House on the comprehensive measures that the Government are taking to ensure renters affected by coronavirus continue to be protected over autumn and winter.
The Government have already taken unprecedented action to ensure that renters were protected from eviction at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, including agreeing with the courts to stay possession proceedings for a total of six months.
I would like to express my thanks to landlords for their forbearance in many cases, and my sympathy to smaller landlords and buy-to-let landlords, who in some cases have experienced hardship as a result.
We have also put in place a major package of financial support to help communities through the pandemic. Through the coronavirus job retention scheme, we have provided support for businesses to pay staff salaries and have also strengthened the welfare safety-net with a nearly £9.3 billion boost to the welfare system. This includes an extra £1 billion to increase local housing allowance (LHA) rates so that they cover the lowest 30% of market rents, meaning we now spend £25 billion supporting households to meet the cost of rent in the private and social rented sectors.
For those renters who require additional support, there is an existing £180 million of Government funding for discretionary housing payments made available this year—an increase of £40 million from last year—for councils to distribute to support renters with housing costs.
We will keep these measures under review and our decisions will continue to be guided by the latest public health advice.
Whilst the measures we introduced were justified at the height of the pandemic, it is now right that we consider how we adapt our approach moving forward.
As we move forward, we will strike a balance of prioritising public health and supporting the most vulnerable over winter, whilst ensuring landlords can access and exercise their right to justice for the most serious cases, such as cases of anti-social behaviour.
On 28 August, we introduced regulations to require landlords to give tenants six months’ notice before they can commence new eviction action, except in the most egregious cases, such as incidents of antisocial behaviour and serious rent arrears. These regulations will remain in place until the end of March 2021, and provide reassurance to responsible tenants that they will not face new court proceedings during this time. This approach ensures tenants will remain safe and have additional time to find new accommodation, while empowering landlords to take action where necessary, for example if a tenant’s antisocial behaviour is severely impacting their neighbours’ quality of life.
We have been working with the judiciary to consider new court arrangements within the current statutory framework, to be put in place once possession proceedings resume, to ensure appropriate support to all parties. I am grateful to the Master of the Rolls and the working group which he established to consider those practical arrangements, and extend particular thanks to Mr Justice Knowles and all the members of the working group for their work on these matters.
The new civil procedure rules, made via statutory instrument in July will come into force on 20 September. This will require landlords to set out any relevant information about a tenant’s circumstances, including information on the effect of the covid-19 pandemic, when bringing a possession claim to court. Landlords will also be required to notify the court and their tenant where they wish to continue pursuing a possession claim that was already in the system before 3 August.
When possession proceedings resume, it is critical to ensure court time is used effectively. The listing of cases is a judicial function. The judiciary will look to prioritise cases, reflecting those issues highlighted by a broad range of stakeholders represented on the working group as putting the most strain on litigants. We understand this will include claims issued before the stay commenced in March 2020, as well as cases involving antisocial behaviour, extreme rent arrears, domestic abuse, fraud and deception, illegal occupiers and squatters or abandonment of a property. This will provide assurance to landlords, their tenants and neighbours facing the most egregious cases.
We are also taking steps to ensure that no enforcement of evictions will take place in areas where local lockdown measures are in force which restrict access to premises. Guidance will be issued to bailiffs to ensure that no enforcement of possession orders will proceed where local measures are in place to protect public health. This will prevent tenants being forced out of their home at an unsettling time In areas when the public health risks could be greater.
In addition, the Government are taking steps to prevent eviction action taking place over the Christmas period, other than in the most serious cases, ensuring vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes at a time when public and local authorities may be dealing with the usual level of increased demand for services during this time. This too will be achieved through guidance to bailiffs that they should not enforce possession orders in the weeks of Christmas.
Comprehensive new guidance for landlords and tenants to explain all these new arrangements and how they impact on the possessions process in courts will be published shortly.
Taken together, these new arrangements strongly incentivise landlords and tenants to sustain tenancies as far as possible and to discuss their situation before bringing a possession claim to court. Where cases do end up in court, these measures ensure court time is prioritised effectively, that the most egregious cases are dealt with as a priority and that court users—both tenants and landlords—have the additional support they may need.
[HCWS446]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Thursday 10th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 126-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (10 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (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.
A list of participants for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking, on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members 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 Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
It is currently intended that we will take a break at 5 pm for 15 minutes. There has been some suggestion that not all Members are happy with this. I suggest, therefore, that the three Whips get together at some point to decide whether they wish to have this break. It being a Thursday, I can understand that people might have different feelings about it.
Amendment 12
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“The Boundary Commissions: constitution
(1) Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act (the Boundary Commissions) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of paragraph 2 insert “in accordance with paragraph 3A below”.(3) In paragraph 3(a), for “Lord Chancellor” substitute “Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales”.(4) In paragraph 3(c), for “Lord Chancellor” substitute “Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales”.(5) After paragraph 3 insert—“3A The two members of each Commission appointed by the Secretary of State shall each be appointed in accordance with the following process—(a) a selection panel shall be convened by the Secretary of State to select the members of the Commission, which shall comprise—(i) the deputy chairman of the Commission, and(ii) two persons appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons;(b) the selection panel shall determine the selection process to be applied and apply that process;(c) the selection panel shall select only one person for recommendation for each appointment as a member of the Commission;(d) the selection panel shall submit to the Secretary of State a report stating who has been selected and any other information required by the Secretary of State;(e) the Secretary of State shall on receipt of the report do one of the following—(i) accept the selection,(ii) reject the selection, or(iii) require the panel to reconsider the selection;(f) the power of the Secretary of State to require the selection panel to reconsider a selection is exercisable only on the ground that, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, there is not enough evidence that the person selected is suitable for appointment as a member of the Commission;(g) the power of the Secretary of State to reject a selection is exercisable only on the ground that, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, the person selected is not suitable for appointment as a member of the Commission;(h) the Secretary of State shall give the selection panel reasons in writing for requiring the reconsideration of, or rejecting, any selection.”(6) In paragraph 4, at end insert “, but the term for which each member (other than the chairman) is appointed shall be a non-renewable term.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the appointment of members of the Boundary Commissions is made and is seen to be made independently and without the influence or appearance of influence of the Executive, to remove the possibility of political interference in the process of setting the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
The background to Amendment 12 is the effect of automaticity in moving the focus to the Boundary Commissions, which will now make the final decisions. This means that any risk of interference or perception of a lack of partiality or other matters will move to the commission and the process of appointing it. The Constitution Committee suggested we should consider what needed to be done to ensure the independence and impartiality of the commission. I am sure that there is complete agreement that the process must be wholly independent and free from the possibility of political inference or, more importantly, any perception of political interference or influence. Decisions must be independent and be seen to be independent and we must safeguard the process from the US problems of gerrymandering.
The amendment seeks to address this issue in three ways, so that the commission is not only independent and impartial but seems to be so. The first way is the appointment of the deputy chairman. Commissions are chaired by deputy chairmen. In each of our four nations the deputy chairman has to be a High Court judge. In Scotland, the deputy chairman is appointed by the head of the judiciary, the Lord President, and in Northern Ireland by the head of judiciary there, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
However, that is not the position in England and Wales. The appointment is not by the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice, but by the Lord Chancellor, a Government Minister. For England and Wales this anomaly predates the change to the position of the Lord Chancellor in 2005. Until then, he was the head of the judiciary in England and Wales and a judge. Now, not only is he not head of the judiciary, he is no longer a judge but a political Minister.
The Act should therefore now be changed so that the deputy chairman is no longer appointed by a Government Minister but, as in Scotland and Northern Ireland, by the head of the judiciary. Although the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice, that is insufficient in the light of the proposed change brought about by the Bill. That is because it is necessary to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is not undermined by any perception of partisanship in the appointment. It must be seen to be wholly independent of the political Minister which the Lord Chancellor now is. That is a small and, I hope, uncontroversial change.
The second matter relates to the independence of the appointment process of the other members. I put forward a process based on the commission used for the appointment of the senior judiciary—the Judicial Appointments Commission—and the appointment process it has adopted. I have done so as the process of the commission will be far more akin to a judicial process. It must be impartial and independent and seen to be so. It must make its decision on the evidence and the decision is then put into effect by the other branches of government, without any power to change the decision.
Therefore, I suggest, first, that the panel must be independent. I propose in my amendment that the panel should comprise the deputy chairman, as that reflects current practice, and two panel members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Secondly, the process should be that determined by the panel. If the panel is appointed as suggested, the selection process should be left to it. I am not in favour of automatic disqualifications, as something you decide now can come back and disqualify someone for something they did many years ago. Thirdly, the panel must put forward one name to the Minister, who can object only on a limited basis and must give reasons in writing. That is the practice followed in judicial appointments. This has proved a very effective mechanism for the appointment of judges and exists—I must emphasise—without in any way undermining public confidence in other appointment processes. It is because the appointment process to the Boundary Commission is so similar to the appointment of judges that I put this forward.
The third means that I think should address the question of impartiality and independence is the non-renewable term. It is clear that the members of the commission must be free of any pressure during their work by the prospect of being offered a further term. That is why a number of bodies with special status have fixed terms that are not renewable. Security of tenure, again, is like that given to judges. If they are not liable to reappointment there cannot be subjective pressure or undue influence. In recent years, the trend has been for constitutional watchdogs to be appointed for a single, non-renewable term. A dozen such bodies whose members cannot be reappointed include the following six, which come under the Cabinet Office: the Civil Service Commission, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Committee on Standards on Public Life, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the Advisory Commission on Business Appointments, and the Local Government Ombudsman. It seems to me that if the Cabinet Office believes in the importance of non-renewal terms for these bodies, why would it not apply this logic to the Boundary Commission?
Parliament also believes in the importance of single, non-renewable terms for constitutional watchdogs. The law was changed in 2006 to make the parliamentary ombudsman appointable for seven years, non-renewable; in 2011 to make the Comptroller and Auditor-General appointable for 10 years, non-renewable; and in 2012 to make the Information Commissioner appointable for seven years, non-renewable. Noble Lords will note that I have not recommended the length of the term. That is because I think it remains to be clarified as to what is planned for the activities of the commissioners, bearing in mind, first, that they are likely to be active for only two to three years in the envisaged eight-year cycle and, secondly, the way in which this is done must make the post attractive. Those are the three bones of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Janvrin (CB) [V]
I will speak briefly in support of the amendment introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. As was discussed on Tuesday, the Bill introduces automaticity into the implementation of new constituency boundaries following a boundary review. This is a move which I support. This amendment is a further step to ensure that the review process is, and is seen to be, totally impartial. Its aim is to strengthen the independence of the Boundary Commissions themselves by setting out how the appointments of their members can be made independently and without the possibility of political interference. The importance of this was underlined by the Constitution Committee and the arguments in favour of this additional clause have just been well set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas.
I simply add that I hope there will be no temptation to argue that this amendment is unnecessary. If the Minister does take that line when he replies, he would be saying in effect that we can trust the present appointments system. I ask him to reflect on this in the context of the level of public trust in politics today, which was touched on in our debate on Tuesday. When winding up the Second Reading debate earlier this year, the Minister said that the Boundary Commissions
“are independent and neutral; they must and will remain so”.—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 96.]
This amendment will surely assist the Government in meeting this worthy pledge.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
Lord Liddle. No? We will move on to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. As Welsh Secretary, I ran a mile whenever I thought there was a conflict of interest. It is for others to judge whether I succeeded. It goes without saying that I did the same as Attorney-General. The spirit and meaning of this amendment is that the office of Lord Chancellor has been changed. It certainly gives the appearance of being a more political office. I will make no comment on his statutory duty to maintain the rule of law in the present circumstances, but it is important to distance the appointment of the Boundary Commission from a perception of closeness to party interests. The machinery—the bread and butter—of general elections is the make-up of constituencies. This is what the Bill does, with disastrous consequences for the representation of Welsh electors. A judicial method of appointment removes the semblance of political interests.
As Welsh Secretary, I had experience of a parallel matter. In what I would call my vice-regal role, it was my duty to appoint the chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission and, I believe, its members. I presume that this duty went, on devolution, to the Assembly and it is too late to amend it, but it is important so far as England is concerned. The same argument—the need to distance decision-making from a politician—applies to this kind of appointment and the Boundary Commission itself. On assuming office, I inherited the proposed appointment of the Local Government Boundary Commission chairman from my Conservative predecessor. I was not satisfied with the proposed appointment.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I begin by apologising for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling this important amendment. As the Committee heard in debates on other amendments on Tuesday, the Bill removes the present power of Parliament to approve the Boundary Commission’s proposals at the end of the process of reviewing boundaries in the UK. As it stands, the process allows MPs only to ratify or block the commission’s proposals, not to amend them. Even this can still be viewed as politicians being able to influence the final decision, as happened in, for example, 1969 and 2001. However much we deplore these situations and others like them, that is what current legislation allows. However, the removal of this power from parliamentarians and, therefore, the introduction of automatic review implementations, has been described by MPs as a “power grab” by the Executive from the legislature and a constitutional outrage. It is seen by many as another attempt to silence or sideline Parliament.
The UK’s four Boundary Commissions pride themselves on the impartiality of their reviews, as they work within the parameters set by various Acts of Parliament. However, up to now that impartiality has ended when the review arrives in Parliament for approval, as history has shown. It is therefore probably right that the UK follow in the footsteps of countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand in removing politicians from the process. After all, during the process of a review, politicians and political parties have the ability to express their views in the submissions they make to the commissions, and those submissions are given due regard.
However, this is the most unequal of changes. The Bill takes away the rights of parliamentarians, but the right of the Executive to appoint members to the Boundary Commission remains intact, leaving the impartiality balance skewed in favour of the Government. This is a situation I do not wish to see in Wales—a future Welsh Boundary Commission, influenced by the UK Executive, could hardly claim to be impartial. If the system is to be seen as fair and impartial, all political influence must be avoided. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment achieves just that. If the Government are reluctant to accept it, the accusations of a power grab by the Executive over the legislature will be seen to have substance. On these Benches, we support measures to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Boundary Commission.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
Diolch yn fawr. It is very nice to have so many Welsh people speaking in this debate. I think it would be a brave Minister who rejected the advice contained in this amendment from a former and very eminent Lord Chief Justice—and one, I might add, whose term of office coincided, I think, with that of Chris Grayling as the Secretary of State for Justice, although why I should make that particular point I cannot think at the moment .
It is clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, knows a thing or two about the relationship between a Secretary of State and our independent judiciary and legal system. He has no doubt seen at close quarters how decisions are made or influenced and is able to draw on this experience in his advice to the Committee and in the amendment that he has moved today.
The amendment covers two points. First, and crucially, it effectively takes the appointment of commission members out of the hands of an elected politician—indeed, a member of the Cabinet—and places oversight in the hands of the Speaker and the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, it makes the appointments non-renewable to ensure that Boundary Commission members can carry out their function with absolutely no glance over their shoulder at the possible renewal of their mandate. As the noble and learned Lord says, this fits in well with the Constitution Committee’s view that if we are to move to automatic implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations, this will protect against undue political influence only if the commissioners themselves are genuinely impartial and completely independent of political influence, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, also said .
In particular, the Constitution Committee recommended that commissioners should be appointed for a single, non-renewable term; the Secretary of State should appoint only from names recommended by the selection panel; and the deputy chair of each commission should sit on the selection panel.
The issue of independence was similarly stressed in a useful briefing note by Dr Alan Renwick and Professor Robert Hazell of the UCL Constitution Unit in their submission to the Commons Bill Committee, where they stressed the need to:
“Protect the Boundary Commissions from Government Interference”—
where, as they say,
“automatic implementation is clearly appropriate only if the review process itself is genuinely independent of any improper interference. If that condition is not met—if, for example, government ministers can unduly influence the appointment of Boundary Commission members or the conduct of reviews—then the independence requirement is violated again.”
The view of those two eminent academics is also that this amendment meets their benchmark for independence.
I would have hoped that we would not need to write such obvious safeguards into the law, but the recent effective removal of those whose advice does not gel with the Government gives one cause for concern. As was discussed earlier in the Chamber today, Tuesday’s news, on the very day of Sir Mark Sedwill’s departure, of the resignation of the head of the Government’s legal department, Sir Jonathan Jones, over his concerns about a threatened breach of the Northern Ireland Protocol, makes him the sixth senior Whitehall civil servant to resign this year. It sounds as if, “If you don’t say the right thing, you don’t stay.”
In a similar manner, recent appointments suggest that a certain push from No. 10 has magically seen Conservatives appointed to a range of positions: the aforementioned Chris Grayling to the National Portrait Gallery; and our own noble Baroness, Lady Harding, appointed as the effective chair of the National Institute for Health Protection, without any advertisement or selection process, and despite being neither a doctor nor a public health professional.
Angela Bray, a former Conservative MP, was suddenly appointed to VisitBritain as a board member. Sir Patrick McLoughlin, a former Conservative Party chair, is now to chair the British Tourist Authority. Nick de Bois will chair VisitEngland and David Ross, a major donor to the Conservative Party and to Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign, is now chair of the Royal Opera House. Political friends have been recently appointed to so-called independent departmental non-executive directorships.
It may well be that all these Conservatives were simply the absolute best, most experienced, most dynamic applicants for these various posts, and that such skills can never be found among Labour or Lib Dem activists, but it does feel as if appointments to important positions may be being handed out on a less than non-political basis. It is therefore crucial, if the Boundary Commission is to have the final say—unchallengeable in Parliament—that we have absolute confidence in the integrity and independence of its members and recommendations and in the appointment of those members.
I say again that I regret that we feel the need to legislate for this. I would have thought that our way of doing government would normally not need this to be written into legislation, but I believe we have to do it. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister’s response to this particular suggestion, and I hope very much that the Government will adopt the amendment and put it forward themselves on Report.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the detailed thought that he has put into drafting his amendment and to the fact that he has drawn the Committee’s attention to this very important topic. I am also grateful to him for the time that he gave to have a private conversation on this matter. I am certainly open to have further conversations with him in the days and weeks ahead. I am grateful to all those who have spoken on this topic today.
I must in preface take up what I thought was a very strikingly polemical political utterance from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in which she purported to impugn the overall integrity of the public appointments system—an implication which was also left in a much more acceptable but similar fashion by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. I will come back to that, because I believe that the integrity of the public appointments system is absolutely fundamental and I am concerned that these kinds of generalised political charges should surface in the manner that we heard from the noble Baroness. I will not trade time in your Lordships’ Committee or at a later stage on Report by listing the names of other people of other parties who have taken up political and public appointments.
For my own part, I do not believe that the desire to give public service as a Member of Parliament or as a humble leaflet deliverer for any political party which is represented in Parliament means that that person should be automatically excluded or regarded as suspect if they are appointed to a public body. I believe that the course of politics—the vocation of politics—and public service through politics are honourable vocations, and that ought to be borne in mind as we address this subject.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
The Minister and I obviously have our political differences, but he probably knows that I would very rarely make a claim that was not accurate. I was speaking quite quickly, so he probably did not quite catch what I said, because my quote from the report of the Constitution Committee, which I have in front of me, was absolutely accurate. What I said was—and this was my opinion—that the amendment fits well the Constitution Committee’s view, which I quoted, that
“automatic implementation … will only protect against undue political influence if they are themselves genuinely independent.”
I then quoted the committee’s recommendation that
“the Commissioners should be appointed for a single, non-renewable term … the appointing minister should be required to appoint only from the names recommended by the selection panel; and … the deputy chair of each commission should sit on the selection panel.”
I was not claiming that the Constitution Committee endorsed the whole of this; my quote was absolutely from the Constitution Committee, and it was on those lines. I realise that I may have been gabbling and the Minister may not have heard me accurately, because I am sure that he would not have made the error otherwise.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might be permitted to reply to that. I always try to be gracious and I enjoy the challenge that comes from the noble Baroness. The cut and thrust of politics makes it worth while being a Member of your Lordships’ House, and let us have more of it. I accept what the noble Baroness says: that she was simply referring to paragraph 6 of the report, which I also have before me. I accept that she was not saying that those were specific recommendations by the Constitution Committee. I hope that she and I, and the whole Committee, will agree that we should consider, as we are doing “what safeguards are required”—which was the recommendation—
“to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Boundary Commissions.”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has put forward some proposals. I have argued that the system currently satisfies that objective. But, as I have said, I am open to having further discussions on this matter.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment. Perhaps I might briefly reply to the points made by the Minister. First, as to the position in respect of the appointment of a judicial member, this is now plainly anomalous. I simply cannot understand why the Government seek to have this particular aspect of a judge’s deployment within the control and decision of a political Minister. Ministers are not allowed to appoint judges to particular cases. If as a result of a Boundary Commission it was felt that the commission had unduly favoured one party, it would be very damaging to the independence, and the perception of independence, of the judiciary if someone was able to say, “Well, that judge who is the deputy chairman was appointed by a politician.”
Further, there seems to be absolutely no reason why the position of those in England and Wales should not brought in line with those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the logic of the position: namely, that at the time this was done, the Lord Chancellor was a judge. The Lord Chancellor is no such thing these days; he is a political Minister.
Secondly, on the issue of public appointments, I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the unique nature of the decision-making of the commission. It is not a body whose decision can in effect be challenged; it is an independent decision. Therefore, a special process much more akin to that of the judiciary is required. Appointability should not be the criterion.
On renewable terms, it is clear that the Cabinet Office accepts, as Parliament has accepted, that there are certain positions where it is essential that the term of appointment be non-renewable, to remove pressure. The Minister said—I think I heard him correctly, but one is always cautious when hearing matters over a remote link—that someone is reappointed subject to a satisfactory appraisal, but that really has no place in the process of appointing someone who is meant to be independent and who may be expected to make decisions of which Ministers do not approve.
I therefore would very much like to take up the opportunity of discussing this further with the Minister and others because I believe that we should be able to put this matter into a situation where everyone can have confidence, and the perception of confidence, so that the judgment of the commission is never capable of being called into question on the basis that politicians have been involved in its appointment. On those terms I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 13. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 5: Number of parliamentary constituencies
Amendment 13
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cormack, who is a signatory to the amendment, sends his apologies for not being able to be present today, but has asked me to stress his support for what I shall be arguing this afternoon.
My amendment to increase the number of parliamentary constituencies from 650 to 800 is drafted for one purpose, and that is to get the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to explain the arguments against having a legislative Chamber of 800 Members.
We have a second Chamber of roughly 800 Members. The Government have not taken any steps to reduce the number—quite the reverse. What change has been achieved has been through pressure from within this House, primarily in the form of Private Members’ legislation, such as the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which enabled the retirement of Members and the removal of Peers who fail to attend for a Session. Without that measure, the House would be closer to 900 Members. The committee under the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has come up with recommendations to reduce the number to give effect to achieving a House that is no bigger than the House of Commons.
If there is to be a disparity in size, it makes more sense for the Commons to be larger than the Lords. The greater the number of MPs, the smaller the size of the constituencies. That arguably would be to the benefit of constituents. It would make possible even closer contact between Members and their constituents. It would facilitate more cohesive constituencies, avoiding some of the anomalies that were described in Tuesday’s proceedings on the Bill. It would potentially reduce the workload of individual Members, which is now becoming quite onerous.
This House has no constituencies. Members do not carry the substantial burdens shouldered by Members of the other place. This House fulfils the role of a reflective Chamber. As such, it merits being smaller than the elected Chamber, as is the norm in other bicameral legislatures.
There is a case not only for this House being smaller than the Commons—a relative point—but for reducing the size of both Houses. I have form in making that case. I chaired a commission that recommended a reduction in the size of the House of Commons over time to 500. I have argued the case for this House to be no bigger than the Commons. Having smaller Houses reduces the pressure on resources, be it in terms of physical space or legislative proceedings. We are, I think, especially alert to the pressures on this House in terms of the number of Members seeking to intervene in time-limited proceedings. However, this is not a question of the convenience of Members. It is important from the perspective of the House if it is to fulfil its core role as a reflective Chamber. There is the danger of quantity overwhelming quality.
The Government also have form, but only in favouring a smaller House of Commons. This Bill stipulates a House of 650, but the Government would have preferred a House of 600. Why, then, has it argued the case for a smaller House of Commons but not for a smaller House of Lords?
Furthermore, what this Bill does is stipulate the number of parliamentary constituencies. The size of the House of Commons has varied. It has had a larger membership in the past, as a consequence of the number of seats in Ireland, but since 1918 the number of constituencies has varied between 625 and 659. The key point is that the number is set in statute. There is no such statutory limit for this House.
If a House of 650 is appropriate for the Commons, why not for the Lords? If there is a fixed number in statute for seats in the first Chamber, why do we not have a statutory cap for the number of Members of the second Chamber? A cap is an important discipline. Those wishing to be MPs have to compete for a parliamentary candidature. A set number for the upper House would impose a discipline on the Prime Minister of the day in nominating Members.
To argue that this House could not operate effectively if it was the same size as, or smaller than, the Commons, is clearly not sustainable. Following the enactment of the House of Lords Act 1999, the size of the House was very similar to that of the House of Commons. The number has expanded massively since, for reasons unrelated to what the House needs to fulfil its key functions.
If having 800 MPs will place too great a strain on resources in the Commons, why does a membership of 800 not place too great a strain on resources in the Lords? In short, what are the arguments against having a House of 800 in respect of the Commons that do not apply to the Lords?
This House has agreed, without a Division, that we are too large. We have pressed for action to reduce our size, making the case for a reduction in terms of output—that is, Members retiring from the House—and a limit on input, in the form of Prime Ministerial nominations. It has to be both if our size is to be reduced. That is key to the work of the Burns committee. The problem in seeking to reduce the size of the House of Lords lies not with the House but with the Executive—hence the following questions to my noble friend Lord True.
Do the Government accept, as the House does, that the House of Lords should be no bigger than the House of Commons? Why are the Government prepared to condone a second Chamber of 800 Members when they seek to limit the first to 650? I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s answers, and I beg to move.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in light of the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, perhaps I might start with, “Rwy’n flin, dwi ddim yn siarad Gymraeg.”. For those who are not fluent in Welsh—as I have just proved that I am not—that was my attempt at “I’m sorry, I don’t speak Welsh.” All I wish to add in relation to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is that I have signed and supported his amendment, which endorses the Burns committee report that was accepted by all sides of the House of Lords.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said and, therefore, I oppose this amendment, because it is clear to everyone that 800 MPs in this or any other legislature in the world is too great a number for ease of debate, expense, space, collegiality and concentrated expertise. Indeed, 650 Members of Parliament was thought to be too many, and it seems that that number has been chosen over 600 to avoid too many MPs losing their seats. If that is the case, 800 is certainly too large for this House as well, even though a substantial proportion rarely show up or participate. Even when we have been operating virtually and many of the barriers to physical arrival in the House have been removed, only about 550 have participated in votes. One is grateful to those who absent themselves because it relieves the pressure on facilities but, at the same time, one asks what they are doing accepting a peerage if they do not want to join in the work of the House.
In opposing this amendment, I call for a renewed effort to reduce the size of the House to a number comparable with the Commons. The fact that our efforts so far have turned out to be in vain is not our fault. This House, sadly, seems to be as unpopular as it has ever been, partly because of its size and partly because of unexpected appointments. It might have been more explicable if a practice recommended by the Lord Speaker’s committee of appending a notice to the announcement to a new appointment of how that person qualifies and expects to serve had been adopted. It is unpopular, too, because it has vigorously and repeatedly rejected the clear will of the electorate, expressed first in a referendum and then confirmed by two subsequent general elections, that they do not want to stay in the European Union. But I wish there was more understanding of our role as scrutineers of legislation and, on occasion, as the moral conscience of the nation—an issue that is likely to come up shortly.
On the issue of size, your Lordships know very well the sensible measures for reduction put forward by the Lord Speaker’s committee. We were progressing quite nicely with reduction until the addition of the new appointments made by this and previous Prime Ministers in the last few years. Despite the pledges made, it seems that Prime Ministers cannot resist the temptation of handing peerages to supporters and donors. There is no way that the House can defy the Writ of Summons calling them to Westminster. The size and composition of this House are also hemmed in by the presence of 26 Bishops and the hereditaries—elements that work to block a better gender balance. Therefore, we have to take matters into our own hands and ask the party groupings again to consider how each may reduce its share of membership. Some will have to be thrown off the life raft in order that more may survive. Rejection of this amendment is a spur to action, and I call on it to serve as such.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the size of the House of Lords are not quite relevant, with respect. When we discussed this before, I said—I was a lonely voice—that our efforts to reduce the size of the House of Lords were bound to fail because of the grim truth that no one could restrain future Prime Ministers. It is the like the puzzle you had as a schoolboy doing your 11 plus or the equivalent—filling the bath at one side and emptying it on the other; there is no means of controlling the end product. That is what I would say on the relevance.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, whom we all respect for his contributions in this field, has put his case very strongly. There is no magic number of 650. Nobody has explained to me why it should be 650 and not 651 or 649, or whatever number is justified. There is no case in my view for reducing the present membership of the House of Commons. That is why I support the principle, whatever the details of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
Being an MP is now much more demanding. In 41 years of representing my own constituency, things were fairly level. There were other problems, mainly industrial problems, but now the task of the MP has become much more difficult. There is an expectation, with the development of email, of instant action on behalf of a demanding constituent. I tried to pursue two professions—of being a Member in the House of Commons and practising at the criminal Bar—and I hope that I succeeded. I doubt that in the present circumstances, such are the demands on a modern Member of Parliament, one could have done the same thing for 41 years.
This is an important amendment. I support it on the principle that the greater the number of MPs, the lesser the chance of wrecking the physical make-up of the membership in Wales. Under the present proposals, the county that I represented in part would again be subject to a huge wrecking operation to justify an equality of numbers for each of the new constituencies. Therefore, the principle of the greater number helps me in my argument of trying to preserve representation that offers some degree of continuity. I used to speak for constituents; those were the people I represented. They value continuity, value the membership of the House of Commons and value the fact that they know who their Member of Parliament is. In my part of the world that may be more important than in a major industrial area, where perhaps there is more anonymity. In our area, it is important that constituents know who to go to when there is trouble.
I support this amendment very much, because it tries to meet present needs, and a reduction in the House of Commons to 650 is no more justified than the original proposal to reduce it 600.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking to your Lordships from the far end of the Room. It is not that I consider noble Lords extra-contagious, and I hope they do not consider me so, and I am not extra-social distancing; it is just the only place that I can get into in my wheelchair. It was an absolute delight to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, speak, and I agree with every word she said. I hope that that does not do irreparable damage to her reputation, but there you have it.
First, I did not intervene at the end of the Minister’s last speech, but I was very surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for whom I have the utmost respect. I thought she was treated abysmally by Jeremy Corbyn, and I am glad she is back in position. I say simply that I recall from 1997 onwards that Tony Blair stuffed every single quango full of Labour Party apparatchiks and the Tory party is a bit slow in catching up.
I go back to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I am afraid that I disagree profoundly with him. There are too many MPs already. I regret that we have gone back to 650 from 600, but I can live with that—I am okay with it. We will come to this later, under the next amendment but, in my opinion, Scotland is heavily overrepresented. Scottish MPs at Westminster have little to do and are earning money on false pretences. English MPs have to deal with all political matters, but Scots at Westminster have MSPs who do the bulk of the work. However, I shall say more about that under the next amendment.
The answer is not to have more MPs or Peers but to increase the powers of parish councils, district councils, county councils, unitary authorities and elected mayors, and to devolve authority down. I agree entirely that the House of Lords should not be larger than the House of Commons, but the answer is to cut the number of Lords and not increase the number of MPs. I am afraid that we have seen, as I said in my detailed report to the committee looking into the size of the Lords, that Prime Ministers will not play ball with recommendations voluntarily to restrict the number of Peers they create. They cannot and will not do it, for many well-known reasons. Like it or not, we are going to have to take matters into our own hands and, at some point, invent a system to have retirement of Peers over a certain age—whatever that may be—and chuck out those who attend less than 20% or 25% of our sittings. But that is for another occasion.
I will also say that MPs do not have a heavier workload now there are no longer MEPs. I am not sure that I ever had any constituents who went to an MEP to handle local problems. They expected the MP to do it. In my experience, most constituents who had a complaint about an EU proposal came to the MP.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said that, with email, people expect instant answers. That is the case, but there is also instant availability of the answers on government websites, and on information supplied by the political parties and by the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. I do not accept that the workload is so exceptionally increased that we need to increase the number of MPs. I hope my noble friend the Minister will reject the amendment. Admittedly, it was well argued by my noble friend Lord Norton, but I hope he will still reject it.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made an interesting speech and made points that the Minister might find hard to answer, but he did not make a case for this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, made an argument in support of it because he wants there to be more Welsh MPs, even if this means more MPs in every other part of the UK. However, I doubt that this proposal would ever make it into a serious party manifesto.
The key question for the Minister is whether the Government accept the principles of the Burns committee and agree with the House of Lords, which wants to reduce the number of its Members. The amendment is clearly born out of frustration that the Prime Minister has just appointed more than 30 new Peers. Perhaps the Minister will explain why.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on his ingenuity in bringing this amendment forward. I describe it as an enabling amendment. He hit the nail on the head. He said that one reason was to try to get the Minister to justify why any House with a size of 800 should be deemed acceptable. It also allows us to discuss a very topical issue that has been in the news recently and which gives us all cause for concern: the increasing size of your Lordships’ House.
It is relevant to discuss this when we discuss the size of the House of Commons and boundaries, because we cannot look at one House in isolation. The two Houses function as a Parliament. What happens in one, and any changes to one, impact on the other. The two come together. I agree with the noble Lord. It is incredible that the Government were talking about reducing the size the House of Commons at the same time as increasing numbers were being appointed to this House.
At this point, I should say that I find it very difficult to speak without moving my arms. I feel like I am in the language lab when I was at school in the 1970s. If noble Lords hear occasional clicking, it is because my hands have hit the sides. I find the Dispatch Box easier than a Perspex box.
The role of a Member of Parliament is becoming increasingly demanding. I know that a number of former MPs are here today. When I was a Member of Parliament I used to say that my work was in thirds, but not of equal sizes. A third of it was my constituency casework and another was advocacy work for the constituency. I used those two-thirds to inform my parliamentary work. It sometimes strikes me that MPs are finding it harder and harder to carve out the time for that work in Parliament to debate and engage with legislation. That is why our relationship with the House of Commons is so important, because that is the work we focus on. It has rightly been said that we do not have the constituency work or advocacy work, but we have to focus on legislation in a different way from MPs because we are not informed by constituency casework.
To me, that role has always been a very serious point about how our parliamentary system functions effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is quite right. She made her own point in some ways when she said that people dislike the House of Lords partly because of its size and partly because of our role on Brexit. People thought that the House of Lords was trying to block Brexit. It never did. All the House of Lords can do is make suggestions to the House of Commons for it to have the final say. In some ways, we are like an advisory body that can be helpful to any Government and the House of Commons.
The Government often misunderstand the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons as being the relationship between the House of Lords and the Government. Drawing a distinction between the House of Commons and the Executive is very important. Our challenge and scrutiny role has a purpose: to be useful and a benefit to the elected House. That is sometimes not a benefit to the Government, but that is not our role, which is to be useful and a benefit to the elected House.
Lord True (Con)
I thank noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Hayward, and all others who spoke. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Norton for his typical ingenuity in transforming a Bill on parliamentary constituencies, referring to the House of Commons, into a House of Lords Bill 2020. I will address the points that he put, even though the purpose of Clause 5 is narrowly defined and keeps the House of Commons at 650. The Bill really is not a legislative vehicle for considering the size and membership of this place. But here we are in Committee in the wonderful, free House of Lords, whose revising greatness, historically, rests a great deal on the freedom of noble Lords to put forward amendments for discussion—a freedom that I personally greatly value.
I will come to the point about the size of the House of Commons, which can be dealt with fairly quickly. My noble friend was really asking about the size of this House and said, “What is the difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons?”. We heard a number of the differences explained in the excellent speech by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. The roles of the two Houses are fundamentally different. Beyond that, this is—or has been, historically—a part-time House of expertise, with a broader pool of expertise. I cavil at using the term “part-time” because it implies that I think Members of your Lordships’ House, as in the nonsense said about them, turn up and do not do the work. This is an extremely hard-working House. Perhaps I should have said that it is not a full-time, professional political House in the sense that the House of Commons is.
A House that is a revising House benefits from a wide pool of expertise and, rightly or wrongly, historically, the House of Lords has worked in that way. When I first had the honour of serving your Lordships’ House as private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in 1997, yes, there were Members who came very rarely in those days. Some spoke perhaps two or three times a year. But some of those individuals—and we all know some who are with us today—came with extraordinary expertise, from which the House benefited and which it listened to. I am not necessarily happy with the argument that the House of Lords must become more and more like the House of Commons—full of professional people who are here all the time. It has a different role. Historically, that has been the reason for a larger number in the House of Lords. The prescriptive history of the House and the process of creations was obviously also the historic reason.
There have been some criticisms of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for creating new Peers. I am not going to irritate the Committee because I am in an emollient mood, particularly as I am about to try to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. However, it is the case that Mr Tony Blair created 354 Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reasonably said that Mr David Cameron created a very large number of Peers, including the Member of the House speaking at the moment. So clearly he was not absolutely accurate in his sense of everybody whom he should appoint, since he dumped me on your Lordships. But the point is that those very large numbers of creations had led to a great bump in the size of the House. To become displeased when a new Prime Minister wishes to make appointments is just a smidgen unreasonable.
The Government have acknowledged that the size of the House of Lords needs addressing but, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are required to keep the expertise and outlook of this place fresh and relevant. A number of ideas have been put forward. The Burns committee has put forward proposals and other statutory ideas have been put forward. The position of the Government is that any reform needs careful consideration and should not be brought forward piecemeal.
The previous attempt to reform your Lordships’ House, which did not find favour either in this House or in the other place, would have introduced an elected Chamber. Some of us are not exactly opposed to that; I have not always made myself popular on this subject with some of my colleagues. That would have achieved two things: a limit to the size of the House, and a House whose membership would have been refreshed by Dissolution. This would have addressed some of the problems that have been described. But that is water under the bridge; it is done and just a historical reflection. It is not to be taken as any kind of intimation of the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.
What I would reject—and this certainly would be the position of Her Majesty’s Government—is the idea put forward by my noble friend that the number in an appointed House should be fixed in statute and could not be increased. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition rightly said that in some circumstances, that could not happen. If an unelected Chamber is in conflict with an elected Chamber, while the House of Lords is now unique, history and the past experience of other countries suggests that a Government must have the ability to make new creations. It was useful to the Liberals to threaten that in 1910 and useful to the Labour Party to threaten it in the 1940s and 1990s. The threat was not really necessary in the 1990s, but it was there.
The arguments for having a fixed number for an appointed House were had at some length on the peerage Bill in the early 18th century. The House of Commons took the view then, rightly, that it could not accept that the numbers of the House of Lords should be limited. So the idea of a cap—not allowing a Prime Minister of whatever party to make appointments beyond a certain number—is not something that could fly.
Although the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, supported the amendment, she referred to—this illustrates my point—the challenge, to use the word used by the Leader of the Opposition, that the House of Lords presented to the other place last year over Brexit. If there were a cap on this House and the House of Commons, with the support of the British people, resolved to go in one direction and the House of Lords, in its wisdom—as it saw it—took a line in the other direction, that would be a recipe for constitutional mayhem of a high order.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. First, I make a plea to the Minister never to refer to this House as a part-time House. He half-corrected himself but this House often sits longer and later than the House of Commons. We are a full-time House. The only difference is that not all Members are full-time Members of your Lordships’ House; they have other interests and activities. We are a full-time House but not all our Members are full-time.
I want to make a couple of points. The Minister said that reform cannot be piecemeal because it must be considered. Reform can be both considered and piecemeal. Most reforms in British constitutional history have been quite gradual. That does not mean that they have not been considered; they have just taken a step-by-step approach, not the big bang approach. The Minister harked back to ducks and tabby cats; I would liken the House of Lords more to a tabby cat than to a duck.
The night in question, when the Minister and I had many discussions late into the night, went later than either of us wanted to be here in Parliament, but potentially the point the Minister is missing is that, after the conflicts that he referred to, both the 1911 and the 1949 Parliament Acts constrained how the House of Lords works. It is quite clear that we have an advisory role and that the House of Commons has primacy. We do not block legislation, we have no intention of blocking legislation and we have no remit or legitimacy to block legislation, but we have an opportunity and an obligation to advise the House of Commons on the basis of the information that we have.
On the Minister’s point about a Prime Minister needing to be able to appoint lots of Peers to get their legislation through, I am not aware of anything that Boris Johnson would have more difficulty with in the House of Commons than in the House of Lords. Even on the rule of law, I suspect that his colleagues in the House of Commons are not terribly happy with him, but that is not why he has appointed these 36 new Peers. It is nothing at all to do with legislation; it is a Prime Ministerial whim and a numbers game.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on the size of the House of Commons being 650 Members. There is something that we can agree entirely on.
Lord True (Con)
First, as I hope I indicated in my remarks, I accept the strictures of the noble Baroness on the phrase “part-time House”. It is a House whose expertise derives in part from the presence of people who are here part-time and bring us their expertise, which is a slightly long-winded way of saying the same thing. I think I said specifically that I would not want anyone to run away with that remark and say that that is what I think of your Lordships’ House. I revere it.
With that correction, I will not detain noble Lords further but I will bank the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that this House’s role is not to block legislation. We shall test those words in the coming weeks and months.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just made two of the points that I was going to make but that will not stop me making them anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, supported my case by speaking against the amendment; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, supported my case by speaking for it. I am not whether that means that I am more skilled or abysmal at drafting amendments than I thought.
That leads me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She argued the case for a formula linking the size of the House of Lords to the membership of the House of Commons. I agree; indeed, I tried to devise an amendment on that very point but getting it within the scope of the Bill was problematic, which is why I moved the amendment I did. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will appreciate that sometimes one must go through some contortions to produce an amendment that will trigger a debate. I speak as someone who, a few years back, moved an amendment to the Psychoactive Substances Bill that would have had the effect of banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol. I realise that it was not going to go anywhere—it was not designed to—but it drew attention to a problem in that Bill.
I have four points to make, two of which the noble Baroness just made in response to my noble friend Lord True. One of her points was that the two Houses have different functions. Of course they do; that was precisely my point. Deriving from that is the case for the House of Lords to be smaller than the House of Commons, given the functions that it fulfils. We are a reflective House. We do not have an outward-facing role in the same way that the Commons does, with Members having to deal with constituencies in relation to their role and in relation to the Executive. The functions are very different. We fulfil different roles, and we add value to the political process by fulfilling that reflective role. Deriving from that, we do not need to be quite so big or, indeed, as big as the House of Commons.
Secondly, as was just touched on and as the noble Baroness stressed, this is not a part-time House. It is very much a full-time House, with some Members who work part-time, if you like, because they do their day jobs then come in to provide their expertise. It did a very good job in 1999 when we had more or less the same number of Members as the House of Commons, so unless my noble friend the Minister is going to argue that it was doing a worse job than now, again, there is no case for the arguments that he has advanced in terms of size.
My next point—again one that the noble Baroness touched upon—relates to my noble friend saying that reform should not be piecemeal. Well, the reform that has been achieved has been piecemeal; it has been the grand schemes brought forward by government that have got nowhere. Those piecemeal changes have I think been well considered—I speak as someone who drafted one of the Bills—and have achieved a great deal. Had we not achieved the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, just think what the size of the House would now be. We would be moving in the direction of the size of the House when we had the hereditary Peers and all the problems that derived from that.
Finally, while I am not saying that we should have a statutory number, there is a case for considering it. My noble friend did not really make an argument against that and I draw attention to the fact that it is not at all unusual for nations to have a set number of Members of their second Chambers. There is not really a clear argument against that. I am not necessarily beating the drum for it; I just say that there is no strong argument against it.
So I am not persuaded by any of the points that my noble friend made—he will not be surprised to hear that. I wanted to tease out the stance of the Government and allow us to continue to make the case—as the House has agreed, without a vote—that we are too large and that steps should be taken to reduce the size of the House. We can move towards that; the Burns recommendations create the means for achieving that. We can have a smaller House that fulfils its key functions and adds value. This House fulfils a very important role that is demonstrably different from that of the Commons. That is why it adds value, and that is why we should serve to uphold it. That would, I think, be facilitated by having a smaller, not a larger, House. We should follow Burns and try to reverse the direction of travel when it comes to the size of the House.
So I am, as I have said, grateful to all those who have spoken. I have made all the points that I think are important in this context, and I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from other Members. I am sure that this is something we will continue to pursue but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Before I call the next group, I have had a request for Members in the room to speak up a little, because I think it is hard for Members, particularly those at the far end, to hear what is going on. It is not made easier by the extraneous noise outside. So if people could perhaps speak a little closer to the microphone, it would be appreciated by the noble Lord who I can see at the end of the table.
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 14
“(2) Rule 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (allocation of constituencies to parts of the United Kingdom) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).(3) After rule 3(1) insert—“(1A) The number of constituencies in Wales shall not be less than 35.”(4) In rule 3(2), at the beginning insert “Subject to rule 3(1A),”.”
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords I beg leave to move Amendment 14, in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Rowe-Beddoe. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Grocott for adding an English voice.
Since the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was passed in 2011, the subsequent boundary reviews have disproportionately impacted Wales. The 2013 review slashed the number of seats by a quarter from 40 to 30—a huge loss of representation, had it been implemented. The 2018 review was even more savage, with Wales expected to lose 11 of its 40 seats. Even under current proposals, which maintain the total number of MPs, Wales is set to lose eight seats—fully a fifth. Whichever way you look at it, Wales will be the most punitively and uniquely impacted of the four nations.
Such a ruthless cut in the number of seats, coupled with the unique Welsh geography, which can see constituencies vary drastically from vast rural ones that are sparsely populated, such as Brecon and Radnorshire, to the densely populated small urban constituencies in Cardiff and Swansea, will have a brutal impact on parliamentary representation in Wales.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to which I have added my name. It addresses the level of representation that devolved Wales should have in the House of Commons.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, described, Amendment 14 provides for a minimum of 35 MPs from Wales. Two distinct issues are at stake with regard to the appropriate level of representation from Wales and they are interrelated. We shall return to the second, the appropriate size of constituency, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has commented, when we debate Amendment 22, so I will not go on to that aspect now. The first and more fundamental issue is whether Wales—or, for that matter, Scotland or Northern Ireland—should, as some suggest, have fewer MPs in future compared with the level that we have enjoyed in the past because we now have our own elected legislatures.
The question arises as a direct result of the ad hoc system of devolution that has been developed over recent years. When non-devolved issues such as general taxation and social security—or, for Wales, policing—arise, it is totally unacceptable that Wales should have a lesser voice because of the existence of our own legislature, dealing with other matters such as education or housing. If it is unfair for Welsh MPs to legislate on English matters, as is quite arguable, it is the same unfairness as having English MPs voting on matters relating to Welsh-language television, for example, as is currently the case. Those difficulties would be sorted by a federal or confederal constitution, but as successive Governments at Westminster have refused to face such anomalies, I am afraid that they have to live with the consequences or cobble up some ad hoc system such as English votes for English laws, which is not entirely satisfactory.
These anomalies certainly do not justify the overall reduction in the number of Welsh MPs because of our unbalanced or inconsistent devolution settlement. Amendment 14 proposes a de minimis of 35 MPs—a reduction of five seats compared with the present level but well above the 29 seats recently advocated. The reduction of five seats is a recognition that relative population is a valid consideration, but it leaves some legroom and flexibility to take on board community considerations, which we will discuss later under Amendment 22.
Amendment 14 is a compromise. I could well make the case that the appropriate level should be maintained at the current 40 Members. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I, as well as other supporters of the amendment, are being pre-eminently reasonable. The amendment offers the possibility of a sensible compromise and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, these hybrid proceedings are very strange. I was in the Committee Room on Tuesday, so I know that my face is appearing on large screens in front of those noble Lords who are present—quite a frightening prospect.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
Indeed it is—I can see that already. Here at home we are at least spared the glass boxes that I suffered on Tuesday.
I am once again speaking up for Scotland, as I do from time to time, after the eloquent speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley—my good friends. I was happy to see Wales go first in the argument, because it has a strong case to put forward. It is totally wrong for Wales as well as Scotland to lose seats in this review and it needs to be reversed. That is why I tabled Amendment 23, which seeks to protect the number of seats in Scotland at the current level, so that Scotland is allocated 59 constituencies, including the two protected constituencies of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I am not making a political argument. Indeed, some people might say that it is against our interests, as the SNP has so many constituencies in Scotland at the moment. Of course, that is merely a temporary situation, which will be reversed at the next election.
Perhaps I can give a little history. When I was first elected, in 1979, there were 71 constituencies in Scotland. That was when there were only 635 constituencies, not 650, in the United Kingdom as a whole. My noble friend Lord Hain referred to the unique position in Wales. I know this sounds a little strange, but Scotland is even more unique than Wales. Can I say that? I am not sure. We certainly have our own peculiarities. I will give the Committee just some examples.
The largest constituency set out in the Boundary Commission for Scotland’s proposal was Highland North, at 12,985 square kilometres. That is about the size of Yorkshire, eight and quarter times the size of Greater London, five times the size of Luxembourg and larger than Cyprus and Luxembourg put together. Indeed, the three largest proposed constituencies—Highland North, Argyll, Bute and Lochaber, and Inverness and Skye—cover 33,000 square kilometres. To put that in context, the three constituencies would cover over 40% of the area of Scotland, which is larger than Belgium. The two constituencies of Highland North and Argyll, Bute and Lochaber would cover an area larger than Slovenia. These large constituencies would also include several island areas, which makes MPs’ travel across them even harder. In fact, the constituency of Argyll and Bute already contains five airports.
Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is my pleasure to give my strong support to both these amendments from my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Foulkes. It is an oversight on my part that I have not actually signed the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. As this is a virtual Parliament, perhaps he can now accept my virtual signature. The amendments are quite similar. They establish minimum numbers of MPs who should represent these two countries.
If it is not too presumptuous to say so, I thought it was quite important that an English voice from an English constituency should take part in this short debate. As I shall argue, these two amendments have significance for the whole United Kingdom. However, in my case, it does break the habit of a lifetime in politics—in fact an iron rule of it—of avoiding making political interventions in either Scotland or Wales. It is a cause of some nervousness, but not in this case. It is a question of the representation not just specifically in those two countries but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Looking at some of the thankfully now-aborted, deeply flawed boundary proposals based on the 600 constituencies, I, like everyone else—like every other former MP—was focusing almost entirely on the effect on my own constituency, perhaps to the neglect of other parts of the country. I can still remember the absolute shock when I was told by friends representing Welsh constituencies that the number of seats in Wales was to be reduced by a quarter. To me, that was absolutely staggering. It was crass. It could only have been the result of some calculating machine operating somewhere—as we know it was—on a very tight formula for electorates of constituencies and with total disregard for pretty much everything else.
I will not go into any more detail as it has already been dealt with thoroughly by my noble friends. In addition to the point that has already been made about the huge significance to the constitution of the country as a whole, a Boundary Commission would be disregarding all that, including geography, history and culture—it is invidious to mention anywhere in particular, but let us say from the valleys of south Wales to the Highlands of Scotland and everything in between—and the massive contribution that MPs from constituencies in those countries have made to the Westminster Parliament. I will not begin to tot up the number of Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and heaven knows who else who have come from there. It really was constitution-making on the hoof, but with regard to only one rule.
I have no hesitation whatever in saying that more factors need to come into play in drawing the electoral boundaries of the United Kingdom than a simple arithmetic rule. The proposals from my noble friends for a minimum number of MPs from both countries seem to be a very sensible structure. If that were to be adhered to, it would be to the benefit of representation and a voice from them. It would benefit the United Kingdom, and it would benefit the variety of opinion, the depth of experience and the representation of unique communities that the House of Commons should rightly pride itself on. I support the two amendments with enthusiasm.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for tabling Amendment 14 and for presenting us with the opportunity to debate the impact of this Bill on the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales and for his excellent introduction to this amendment. As we know, Wales has 40 MPs. If the recommendations in the Bill come into being and constituencies of near equal numbers of voters are created, it is estimated that this would result in the number being reduced to somewhere around 32—or, as the leading north Wales newspaper’s headline proclaimed:
“Proposed boundary shakeup ‘could see Wales lose a quarter of its MPs’.”
At a time when it is important that the voice of Wales is heard in Westminster, this reduction in representation is a real disappointment. By making all votes count equally throughout the UK, Wales will lose eight or perhaps even nine MPs to England.
If the Government care about all votes counting equally, could I recommend that they adopt a fair, modern and proportional voting system to represent properly the political views of all voters in the UK? I think that many people in Wales are beginning to view the country’s political future in a different light. We know already that as a small country we are massively outnumbered, as it is, by our larger neighbour. This reduction in the number of Welsh MPs will further unsettle voters.
However, attitudes towards our relationship with England and the union are changing. Devolution and, ironically, Covid-19 are contributing to that. A YouGov poll published on 1 September showed that more than twice as many people trust the Senedd as trust Westminster to look after the interests of Wales. The people of Wales are turning their backs on the union with England in another way. While preparing for this debate, I reread the speech I made in October last year in response to the Queen’s Speech. I spoke about the independence debate in Wales and the growth of what is termed the “indy-curious”—those people in Wales who do not consider themselves to be nationalist but are curious about independence and open to it. At the time I made the speech, I think around 6% of the Welsh population were in favour of independence. By June this year, the figure had risen to 25% and the latest YouGov poll taken in August shows 32%, the highest figure ever recorded in favour of Welsh independence.
For me, maintaining the status quo would be the ideal. We are rather comfortable with the 40 parliamentary constituencies we have now, but I accept that that is probably a non-starter under the Bill. I regretfully accept that there is very little likelihood that the Minister will agree to the proposed number of Welsh MPs being increased, despite the excellent case made by many speakers in Grand Committee today, but I would be delighted if the Minister proved me wrong.
Fortunately for Welsh voters, there is a way to redress the balance. The Senedd has legislated in Wales for more than 20 years, with only 60 Members. It desperately needs more. As the McAllister review concluded in 2017, the National Assembly, as it was then, needs more Members as its powers continue to grow in order effectively to hold the Welsh Government to account and deliver for the people and communities of Wales—now even more so.
As our representation and voice in Westminster look likely to be reduced, it is not only logical but right that our Senedd take the tools they need to do their job. The Welsh people now understand the value of devolution and the Senedd and the challenge is for political parties to be clear with the electorate as we approach the Senedd elections next year and make the case for increased representation in Cardiff in their manifestos. If Welsh voters are to lose out in Westminster, they cannot and must not also lose out in Cardiff.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hain, as is his custom. He was my political neighbour for many years. I represented Aberavon and he represented Neath. I am not going to take up too much time expanding on the observations I made at Second Reading. Indeed, I made the same points almost exactly word for word in the debates on the earlier Bill from the coalition Government. I could see that there had been an obvious increase in Welsh representation over the years. I suspect the reason has been that the Boundary Commission has not wanted to upset unduly the status quo and has taken the easiest route by expanding membership. I suspect it looked at Wales, as it knows it well. In fairness, there were strong arguments for it: first, the affinity with local government; secondly, the advantage of continuity; thirdly, the particular needs of constituencies with the run down of traditional heavy industries; and lastly, the unwritten rule manifested in practice almost without exception over a long period of time that the number should not fall below 35. Can the Minister tell us exactly when and on what occasions and for what period the figure went below 35? I have not gone into the history of the matter, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us the answer to that specific question.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, expanding on his amendment. While he was talking about the unique difficulties of these extremely large Welsh constituencies and the difficulty of travel, I must confess I was quite sympathetic. When he concluded his remarks, I did a little Google search to find out the largest constituency in Wales. It seems to be Brecon and Radnorshire; the twelfth largest in the UK, it is 1,164 square miles. When I read that, I changed my mind and thought, “Lord Hain, so what? Big deal. Dry your eyes and get over it”. My constituency in the Lake District was 1,450 square miles and stretched from the Irish Sea on one side to the Pennines on the other where it was closer to the North Sea than to the other side of the country. If I wanted to travel from the Scottish border to its southern extremity, it was only an hour on the M6, even sticking to the legal speed limits. If I wanted to go from west to east, it was at least two and a half to three hours on minor and difficult roads. I am not quoting that as a sob story, merely to point out that Wales is not entirely unique in having large constituencies. I think the Richmond, Yorkshire constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, was the second largest to mine, although he did not like to hear that.
In a spirit of being helpful, I did not want to be too provocative and stir up the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I cannot call him my noble friend but, in some ways, he is my noble pal because we worked together at the Council of Europe. I was tempted to put down an amendment reducing the number of Scottish constituencies to 30. However, I realised that if he was present physically, or even on the large screen, that could cause a bout of apoplexy, so I did not do it. I do not know if Scotland is unique, but the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, certainly is and the House of Lords is a better place for it.
Scotland—and, to a certain extent Wales, but I do not know much about that—does not need all these excess MPs because the MSPs are doing the majority of the work. I remind the Committee of the matters devolved to Scotland which MSPs are in charge of, taken from the Scottish Government’s website: agriculture, forestry and fisheries; education and training; environment; health and social services; housing; land use; planning; law and order; local government; sport and the arts; some forms of taxation; and many aspects of transport. That is what MSPs do; United Kingdom MPs from Scotland do not have those matters to handle. The reserved matters, in which they can legitimately have an interest and on which they can claim to be working, are: benefits and social security, which I accept is quite a big one; broadcasting; constitution; defence; employment; equal opportunities; foreign policy; immigration; and trade and industry.
Those noble Lords who have been Members of Parliament in the Commons will realise that the former category of devolved matters involves the vast bulk of constituency work. Scottish MPs only have to do the reserved matters; English MPs have to do the whole shooting match—everything that is devolved to Scotland and all the reserved matters as well. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, say that in Wales most people now seem to accept that the Welsh Assembly Members are the real powerhouse. They are the ones who do all the work and people are increasingly looking to their Welsh Assembly Members to fix all their problems, not the United Kingdom MPs from Wales who come to Westminster.
It cannot be right that we have so many Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales who are doing half the workload of English MPs. It is notable that all the advocates of these amendments have talked about constituency size in geographical terms, not about the number of constituents or the much-reduced workload for United Kingdom representatives from those countries. That is not right. Rather than halve their salaries, I would like to see their numbers cut to equate to their responsibilities. I am therefore happy to support the Bill in its present form.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I apologise for not having signed it, because I agree with it wholeheartedly. I could not agree less with what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said. Not only is he being provocative, but he has knowingly missed an important point.
During my time as an MP and a candidate, I experienced four boundary reviews and I know how disruptive and traumatic they are. The first-past-the-post system sets great store by the connection between an MP and his or her constituents; boundary changes weaken, and can destroy, this, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out. This is why the commission should seek to minimise disruption and retain community and geographical links as far as possible. At a time of tension in relations across the UK, a reduction in the number of MPs representing its devolved parts will not be well received.
When I embarked on my parliamentary career, we had 72 MPs in Scotland. Following devolution, we now have 59— just over 9% of the total. The change was made for a particular reason: the effect of devolution. The rural constituencies in Scotland are now, on average, larger areas than their counterparts in the south, in spite of everything mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. They are further away from London and, in most cases, certainly when they are from the north of Scotland, MPs have to fly in order to attend the House of Commons. Travelling time to, from and within constituencies is often greater and it is not practical to nip back for a constituency event during the parliamentary week, other than in exceptional circumstances. It is true that, prior to devolution, details of Scottish policy that are now handled by Holyrood were decided by Westminster. Much of domestic policy is now devolved, but that is why we had the reduction in MPs previously, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out.
The Government are embarking on a range of radical proposals which have far-reaching implications for Scotland and the future of the UK. I completely refute the case that Scottish Members of Parliament—or Welsh or Northern Irish ones for that matter—will have less work to do. On the contrary, this Government’s cavalier lack of interest in the continuation of the United Kingdom means that they will have far more to do than they have had since devolution began. Right now, apart from this Bill, there are the immigration, Trade, Agriculture and internal market Bills, which require detailed scrutiny by representatives from Scotland as well as Wales and Northern Ireland. I have been, and will be, involved in debates on these Bills, seeking to strengthen the devolution settlement and moving us towards a more federal union. Yet the Government are resistant to requiring consent to legislation from the devolved Administrations or considering a form of qualified majority voting to balance the fact that England can always outvote the devolved legislatures.
It is argued that numbers should prevail, but federal countries such as the USA, Canada, Germany and Australia all provide checks and balances between the centre and the parts that make up the whole. For example, California has two senators, as does Wyoming, which has the smallest population of all the United States. I understand the case for approximately equal numbers, but I believe that this can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes. Through the different boundary changes during my time in Parliament, my constituency started out in Aberdeenshire; then it was part of Aberdeenshire with part of Aberdeen; then part of Aberdeenshire with parts of Banffshire; then, finally, part of Aberdeenshire with part of Aberdeen, although not the same part. The Aberdeen part was the northern suburbs, which was confusing as the constituency of Aberdeen North did not include the northernmost wards of the city. All this makes a mockery of the special link between the MP and the constituency, although I was fortunate enough to get myself elected, in spite of these changes, on seven separate occasions.
When the Scottish Parliament was set up, the Westminster constituencies and those for the Scottish Parliament were the same. This was not sustainable when the number of Westminster constituencies reduced. At the foundation of the Scottish Parliament, the Gordon constituency had an MSP and an MP for the same territory. Once the boundaries were changed, the constituency then included parts of east Aberdeenshire, parts of west Aberdeenshire and parts of Donside, which caused further confusion for almost everybody. Even more frustrating, at the start of each boundary review, the electorate of Gordon was almost exactly on quota. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, seemed to have had the same issue. Yet the Boundary Commission drew up the boundaries of the surrounding constituencies and took chunks out of Gordon to make up their numbers, which is why I had so many radical constituency changes. I did manage to persuade the Boundary Commission to keep Huntly in Gordon, given that it was the seat of the Dukes of Gordon and the recruiting base for the Gordon Highlanders. It would have been pretty ironic to keep the constituency name and remove the Gordon connection.
I hope the Boundary Commission will have learned from previous reviews and take seriously the need to minimise disruption between Westminster and Holyrood boundaries and anomalous breaches of community links. However, its task will be made harder if amendments such as these and other related ones are not accepted to change this rigid application of numbers, with a totally cavalier disregard for the implications for further tensions in the United Kingdom. The Government are not prepared to consider how the devolution settlement can be updated to allow the devolved Administrations to have a genuine say in UK decisions, rather than a situation where the United Kingdom can overrule them.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
For me, this is about priorities. I suppose that is what I shall try to appeal to the Minister about. My priority is the future of the union and what I see, if the Bill goes through in its current form, as the undermining of its unity. The argument we are getting back is that the priority has to be the number of electors in a constituency, the size of the constituencies and how that gives equal weight to votes. However, as we heard on Tuesday, our current first past the post system for Westminster, although I support it, does not offer equal votes with equal responsibilities. We would have to change the electoral system, which I do not want to do, to get to a situation where votes are of equal value.
On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, got half of it right and half of it wrong. The half that was right was about the devolution of powers to mayors, the nations, local authorities, councils and local councillors, which I fully support. However, one of his big attacks, which he repeated today, was on numbers. I touched on this at Second Reading: currently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have 117 constituencies, with London and the south-east having 156. If these proposals go through, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be reduced to 106, with London and the south-east having 164. Even within the history of United Kingdom, MPs in London and the south-east would easily be able to outvote those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
That takes me back to the priority of the union. The best way for us to protect the union, which I think the vast majority, if not all, of us in the Grand Committee want to do, would be to have the voices, concerns and issues of constituents, communities and people across the nation aired well and loudly in Westminster. These reductions in Scotland, and in Wales, as we have heard from far more eloquent speakers, will undermine that. The points that my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Hain made about geography and community are absolutely right and important, but my appeal to the Minister is that if we can retain what we have, we will give those who seek to undermine and break up the union fewer arguments. If we move forward with the proposals as they are in the Bill, it will enhance those arguments for the break-up of the union.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I want to speak specifically about Amendment 14. I am glad to see it on the Marshalled List, because it raises some important and specific issues about the situation in Wales, introduced very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
The reference to the 1944 Act in this amendment reminds us that Wales has always been accepted as a special case. In terms of population, its smaller rural constituency sizes have been accepted as a practical necessity. The formula that the Government propose would see 32 Welsh constituencies, which is clearly inadequate. Some would argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has, that, now that Wales has devolution, it no longer requires this protection.
My answer is that the Senedd still has unrealistically low numbers of Members—only 60. That is quite out of kilter with Northern Ireland, for example, which has a smaller population and 90 Members of its Assembly. As it has gained more powers, the Senedd has a greater rather than a lesser problem; it is now within the Senedd’s own power to increase its size, and it has been Welsh Liberal Democrat policy for many years that there should be greater powers for the Senedd and at least 80 Members. If that were to be the situation, we would not oppose a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs. I considered tabling my own amendment on this, but I could not find a way to cast it that would be acceptable because, as I said, it is the Senedd that decides its membership, and I very much hope that it goes on and approves an increase in membership very soon.
The news yesterday and today in Wales is dominated by the UK Government’s internal market Bill, but in Wales there is an additional concern about it because the Government intend to recentralise some powers that were previously devolved. MPs from Wales will therefore apparently be busier than they are now, so it seems a strange time to cut the numbers so drastically.
I looked at the predicted numbers across all the nations of the UK; the totals give a stark picture of 10 more MPs for England and eight fewer MPs for Wales. It sometimes seems that this Government neglect no issue in their attempts to alienate the devolved nations. I warn them not to take Wales for granted. My noble friend Lady Humphreys has pointed out the increasing support for independence. Yesterday’s resignation by David Melding, the Conservative shadow Counsel General in Wales, makes the point that this is not just a nationalist flurry. David Melding is an ex-Deputy Presiding Officer for the Senedd and one of the leading Conservatives in Wales.
When we argue for the special factors in Wales, it is geography which usually dominates the debate. There is an old joke: if Wales was ironed flat it would be as big as England. The mountains are our glory, but they are also powerful barriers, and there are so many of them. In the north there is Snowdonia, in the middle, the Brecon Beacons, and in the south, dividing the valleys. I live in Cardiff, and have to cross Caerphilly Mountain, or go a very long way around the bottom of it, to get to the next local authority. Combining valleys in one constituency means combining totally different communities, served by different local authorities and services. It already takes two or more hours to drive from one end of Brecon and Radnorshire to the other, so combining it with another constituency is clearly ridiculous, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said. All this makes a powerful case for the importance of the Electoral Commissions continuing to take into account local community ties and identities, as they always have.
The truth is that no single system is appropriate for every type of area across the UK, from the Cities of London and Westminster to Orkney and Shetland. In Wales, we have a specific additional factor that must be considered: the Welsh language. It is by far the most developed and flourishing UK minority language. I was proud to be the very first Minister for the Welsh language, and I initiated a strong programme to support and encourage its use. It was all community-based. The language’s areas of strength are geographically based in the west and north of Wales, although nowadays even areas of Cardiff are recognised as Welsh-speaking areas. It would be a mistake to fragment those Welsh-speaking communities by dividing them into different constituencies.
I realise that a number of other parts of the UK might claim a similar distinctiveness. My noble friend Lord Tyler’s Amendment 20 makes a similar point about Cornwall. The following group of amendments that will be considered this afternoon, to which I will not speak, relates to the different percentages that might be used as the permitted variants, and includes Liberal Democrat Amendment 16. These are all ways of attacking the problem that the current 5% variance is too tight to avoid constant reorganisations of constituency boundaries. I hope that when these variations are discussed, this can happen alongside consideration of the importance of local community ties and characteristics.
The proposal for 32 Welsh constituencies is clearly a product of an inflexible approach and an attempt to standardise the fundamentally different parts of this United Kingdom. The 35 seats suggested in Amendment 14 is one way to tackle the issues. Liberal Democrat Amendment 16 is another. It is a different approach, and I hope that they would achieve similar outcomes; they both have similar intention, and I urge the Government to accept one of the proposed compromises.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I was thrilled when in introducing this debate my noble friend Lord Hain thanked my noble friend Lord Grocott for participating as an Englishman but did not thank me. That was quite right, because I have been for 25 years now living half my life in Wales. I am only a little behind my noble friend Lord Hain, who started in Neath in 1991, so I speak now—officially anointed by my noble friend—as a Welshman. I am not going to speak about Wales—there has been a wonderful hwyl about the geographic specialities and peculiarities of my adopted country; no doubt I could persist in that. I am afraid that I am going to speak about crude politics.
We are constantly told that this is a Conservative and Unionist Government, who want to save and protect the union. We are all of us familiar with the threat to the union from Scottish independence, but I am afraid that I detect—I hope that I am wrong, but I do not think I am—a growing threat in Wales. Polls have been referred to. At the beginning of the year, only 19% of Welsh voters were in favour of an independent Wales; that reached 25% in June and 32% in August, when polled by YouGov. That is sharp increase in sentiment in favour of an independent Wales.
We also have elections coming up for the Senedd next year. Not all people in Wales have the great enthusiasm I have for the current Administration in Cardiff, but what are those who do not want to vote Labour supposed to do? The Lib Dems are past their peak down our way. The Welsh are not naturally Conservatives. Brexit or one of those lot? I doubt it. Quite apart from increasing sentiment for independence, there will be a strong temptation to turn to Plaid.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I sympathise with many of the sentiments expressed by those who want to protect some of the principles of existing constituency representation in Wales and Scotland, but there is a need to agree a set of rules that can apply across the UK for drawing up constituency boundaries for MPs serving in a UK Parliament. We must look to how best to address all these concerns fairly.
First, I think we need to go back a little in history. In 1996 I was the joint secretary of what became known as the Cook-Maclennan committee, which drew up proposals agreed between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats to legislate for the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The plans were good and were quickly enacted following the 1997 general election, but the Labour Party chose not to legislate for the 144-Member Scottish Parliament agreed by all parties in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, nor for the 80-Member Welsh Assembly, as it was then called. It legislated instead for a 129-seat Scottish Parliament and a 60-seat Welsh Assembly. I understand why, for its own interests, it wanted less-proportional outcomes in those elections, but it was wrong in its calculations.
More significantly, given the increased powers given to these devolved Parliaments since 1999, more consideration must now be given to increasing the number of parliamentarians in those places, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Randerson a few minutes ago. This would be instead of simply trying to suggest that different rules should apply for drawing up Westminster constituency boundaries in different parts of the UK. We need fair rules everywhere, and this requires greater flexibility in those rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, described some of the potential consequences to constituencies in Wales that featured in the proposed reviews based on the process legislated for in 2011, but I urge him and his party colleagues to look carefully at Amendment 16 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler. It gives the Boundary Commissions more latitude, while preserving the agreed principle of the Bill. It allows them to take more account of special geographic considerations including the size, shape and accessibility of constituencies, their existing boundaries, local ties and the need to avoid unnecessary disruption.
The best hope for those sympathetic to these amendments is to be found in Amendment 16, which provides greater flexibility for the Boundary Commissions than any other amendment.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this very interesting debate. Some powerful contributions have been made, not least by fellow Celts—I speak as a Cornishman. I have a great deal of sympathy with what they are saying, not least in their emphasis on human geography. After all, in the end, all these proposals will not be there for the benefit of elected MPs, or indeed anybody else in the political system; they must be there to serve the people of the areas concerned. It is the human geography that is important. In that context, it is important for all of us who have been MPs to remind your Lordships’ House that when we are elected we are not there just to support, endorse and help only those who happen to be on the electoral register but to support all those who live in the areas concerned. For example, I do not recall ever asking anybody who came to me for help whether they were registered on the electoral roll.
The one thing I found very disappointing about this debate was from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with whom I have worked in the past and for whom I have a great deal of respect, right back to his radical days as a young Liberal. He of course was a very distinguished member of the Government my noble friend Lord Rennard just referred to; the Government who introduced the first major steps to affording devolved representation at Holyrood and in Cardiff and the powers needed to do a job for those nations. To not see this Bill in the context of the very successful devolution that took place then and that has taken place since is a major disadvantage. I was very glad that my noble friends made reference to that in their contributions.
We Liberal Democrats are concerned about the threat of a disunited kingdom, if I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. However, we are also extremely concerned that the forthcoming devolution White Paper for England represents a major change too. As we have very unequal representation at the national level within the United Kingdom, we are in danger of a major political and constitutional problem.
My noble friends referred to the long-standing commitment that we have had for a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, which would take account of the needs of the different nations. In addition, however, we have been firmly committed to the principle of subsidiarity, and reference has been made to that in this and previous debates on the Bill. We believe that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people who will be affected by them. Therefore, we take very seriously indeed the extent to which we have not been able to extend devolution to parts of England.
Those who have been the strongest protagonists for improved and strengthened devolution powers in Cardiff and in Edinburgh must recognise that English citizens are at present deprived. Even though we have a form of devolution in Cornwall, we would dearly love to have the same sorts of powers that are currently exercised in the Senedd or in Holyrood. Incidentally, the point made by my noble friends about the lack of sufficient membership in the Senedd is extremely valid. As my noble friend Lord Rennard just reminded the Grand Committee, that was not what was intended at the outset in 1999.
I believe that this set of proposals, however powerful, has to be seen in the wider context of the whole of the United Kingdom. If the Bill goes through in its current form, with 650 Members for the whole of the United Kingdom, I must assume that the Minister will, in a few minutes, tell the Grand Committee that every additional Member that is allocated to Wales or to Scotland means fewer for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be irresponsible just to ignore that point.
As has already been said, there are a number of constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom that are very big indeed—big both in geography and in the difficulty of representing them adequately, and most importantly, as I said at the outset, big in their human geography. It would surely be folly to ignore that particular lead, simply by trying to deal with the problems that may result in rural Wales or the highlands of Scotland.
As it happens, I know both those areas quite well, as I will explain when we come to the amendment dealing with the current constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire—I know that constituency extremely well. I recognise the special case which can be argued for that part of Wales—of its rurality and the difficulty of communities coming together in an area like that—or indeed in the highlands of Scotland. I had the privilege of going to campaign for the then Member of Parliament in that area, and for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, when he was the long-standing and much-respected Member for Gordon. We may need to take special account of both those areas, and it will be the human geography, as well as the physical geography, that will need our attention.
As my noble friend Lord Rennard suggested, when we come to the next group of amendments—particularly the amendment in my name and his—we may be able to find some way of dealing with such special circumstances. I very much hope so, and I hope that Members on other sides of the House and in this Grand Committee will also see the advantage of coming to a firm decision, but one that is applicable throughout the United Kingdom, to deal with the particular problems which have been referred to at this stage.
I look forward with interest to how the Minister will attempt to square the circle. I am sure he will share with all of us the concerns expressed about the service that can be given to people in areas described in this debate. However, I do not think it necessarily will require a major change between the different nations, and therefore a diseconomy between the attitude that is given to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and to other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, thanks are due in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Wigley, Lord Foulkes and Lord Grocott, for speaking to this amendment. Between them, they made the essential points. I will not go into too much detail of what I wish to say, but it is about the geography of Wales and Scotland and how that relates to the rest of the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that it has been a ruthless, if not brutal, exercise in seeing the proposed move from 600 seats to 650 seats. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made the point that geographic size matters, despite the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, should dry his eyes and get on with it. That would be an unwise piece of advice, given the current state of the union in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, reminded us of the massive contribution that has come from Welsh and Scottish politicians to the whole of the UK, and it is hard to underestimate the numbers—we referred to Prime Ministers and others—who have come to represent this country.
The noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McNicol, made the crucial point: the impact that this decision will have upon the survivability of the UK. As we know, the SNP has a majority in Scotland and is promising, or threatening, another independence referendum. In Wales, the mood about whether it needs to strengthen its independence from the rest of the UK is getting stronger. If this Parliament gets this decision wrong, it will have those kinds of consequences. While I am sure that the Minister is thinking very carefully about this, I ask him to bear in mind the consequences on the whole of the UK of the decisions to be made about Wales and Scotland.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group seek to fix the number of constituencies of two nations. Respectively, they propose that, in Wales, there should be a minimum number of 35 and, in Scotland, the current number of 59 constituencies should be retained.
A number of noble Lords brought up the union, and I begin by reiterating that we are committed to equal representation across the United Kingdom and within the constituent nations of our union. Updated and equal boundaries will ensure that every constituent nation in the United Kingdom has equal representation in the UK Parliament and will deliver parity of representation across the United Kingdom’s constituencies. The measures in the Bill that address fairness and equality are designed to strengthen the ties between the four parts of our country. We know that a vote has the same value whether it is cast in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Each voter’s contribution to the important matter of choosing a Government will be even more clearly a shared and joint endeavour among all nations of the UK.
The Government strongly believe that, for something as important as the right to choose the Government of the day, equality and fairness must be the overriding principles. It is in everyone’s interest that our political system is fair and that votes carry a more equal weight throughout the country. If we let some constituencies stay smaller than others, voters in those smaller constituencies will have more power than those in larger ones. That cannot be equitable.
I add that there are no proposals in the Bill to reduce the number of seats in Scotland and Wales—the Boundary Commissions decide on that at each review. If there were a mass population increase in any part of Scotland or Wales, they would get more seats than they already have, and that is the same across the whole United Kingdom.
I thank the noble Lords from Wales and Scotland. I wrote a list: from Wales, we heard the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Wigley and Lord Lipsey, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Humphreys and Lady Randerson. From Scotland, there were the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Grocott, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord McNicol. These noble Lords obviously love their countries and spoke very strongly for them, but this is not a Bill to discuss the geography of Wales or Scotland, or even, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, the Lake District. The time for that is when the Boundary Commission comes in.
Within the current rules set out in the legislation, the Boundary Commission continues to take into account factors such as physical geographical features, including the mountains we heard about, rivers, local government boundaries and local ties. It is therefore important that all local people, from politicians to ordinary members of our communities, get involved. As politicians, we should be the ones to encourage people to get involved in those reviews. There will be written representations during the first consultation stage, public meetings in the second, and then a third consultation stage. That is when the issues raised so clearly by noble Lords this afternoon will be taken into account. The Boundary Commission rules say that they must be.
There are some other issues to raise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, talked about seats in Wales. I had a little look: the last time that Wales had 32 seats was in 1826. Interestingly enough, in 1945, there were two Scottish MPs for every Welsh MP. That is how unequal it was then; it is now three to two, but it still needs more work, that has to be said.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support, but I must say that, when the Scottish Parliament came into existence in 2005, Scotland took a reduction of 13 constituencies. It is important that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have equal weight in our UK Parliament. It is Parliament that looks at tax, immigration and defence, which are important things for the people of the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, equal representation really matters.
There was quite a bit of talk from noble Lords about tolerance. Later in Committee, we will debate a number of amendments tabled on this issue. They are closely related: by setting a fixed or minimum number of constituencies in a particular area, they dictate that the Boundary Commission will not be able to apply the same tolerance in those places as it is obliged to implement elsewhere. Cementing certain numbers in Scotland and Wales—based, I assume, on your Lordships’ hunch that those numbers sound about right—will enshrine electoral inequality. As I have tried to explain, that is exactly what we are trying to move away from.
Under the current legislation, a mathematical formula called the Sainte-Laguë method—I have notes on it but do not intend to explain it—is used to allocate constituency numbers to each of the four nations on the basis of their electorates. This method is widely used internationally and is recognised as one of the fairest ways to make this type of distribution. It is rational and just and should be maintained, not just for England and Northern Ireland but all four nations.
Amendments 14 and 23 take a very different approach. They ignore the notion that a vote in Aberdeen or Aberavon should be the same as one in Aylesbury. The ratio of citizens to MP should be broadly similar across the union. In effect, the amendments would establish separate and lower electoral quotas for Scotland and Wales, providing no justification to the electors of England and Northern Ireland for why that should be the case.
Based on electoral data from 2019, we could expect to see an average constituency size of approximately 67,500 people in Scotland and 66,000 in Wales, while all constituencies in England and Northern Ireland would be pegged to the UK average of approximately 72,500. In fact, the Boundary Commissions for those less-favoured nations might struggle to keep within a 10% range of the electoral quota because, as a result of Scotland and Wales’s allocations being earmarked, they would have fewer constituencies than they might have usually expected over which to spread their electorates.
This approach is neither fair nor rational. It flies in the face of the equality that the Government seek to achieve for the United Kingdom and which was endorsed by the other place. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Lipsey. I first call the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I want to come back to the Minister. The Government seem to put all their weight behind the equality of the number of electors within constituencies, and have said that all the arguments from all the noble Lords who spoke in the debate are irrelevant because we would move away from equal votes of equal weight across the nations.
How does the Minister explain the exemptions that there are already in place for the islands? Yes, they are islands, but in accepting that they are special cases because they are islands, you are accepting the premise that there can be exceptions. I think that, with the arguments made—specifically the point about protecting the future of the union—these exceptions for Wales and Scotland should outweigh this crass, simplistic, mathematical argument.
I just repeat, because it is really important: under our current electoral system, which I support, if we were to make the changes proposed in the Bill and constituencies were of a similar size within quite a small variation, a single vote in Lerwick would still not be the same as a single vote in Luton. With our electoral system, you cannot make that argument.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The five protected constituencies are islands, as the noble Lord has already said, and I think an island is different. The islands need to be of a certain size in order to merit this, but I think that is correct.
I have mentioned the fact that it is for the Boundary Commissions to listen to these arguments about the specifics of constituencies, and that is not just for constituencies in Wales and Scotland; I am sure, as we have heard already today, that similar issues may arise in certain parts of England. Each constituency is unique; every single MP in this country will say that they have a special constituency with unique features which needs unique ways of dealing with these issues.
So, I am sorry, but I do not agree. I think that islands are different, and that is why we have further brought the Isle of Anglesey into this. Any local issues of geography and community should be brought up with the Boundary Commissions when they do their reviews.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I will just, if I may, correct the Minister on a minor point. She listed among the Scottish Members present my noble friend Lord Grocott. As he was born in Watford, educated at Leicester and Manchester and represented English seats, including The Wrekin, I wonder if she might withdraw that little error.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry; I am very happy to withdraw that. He was supporting the cause of Scotland.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all who have participated in the debate, beginning with my noble friend Lord Wigley, whose passion for Wales wins huge respect and affection not just in Wales but in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes spoke eloquently about Scotland, but I think that he will nevertheless agree that Wales is impacted far more punitively and that this amendment is far more moderate than his.
I also applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for making the point that twice as many voters trust the Senedd as trust the UK Parliament. That is a pretty salutary figure. She also made the point that there has been a rise in support for independence from a frankly derisory figure that would disappoint my noble friend Lord Wigley up to nearly a third—a point also made by a self-adopted Welshman, my noble friend Lord Lipsey. This should worry the noble Baroness the Minister.
I express gratitude to my former MP neighbour, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, who has served in public life with such distinction. I agree strongly with his phrase about the wholesale “wrecking” of representation in Wales, which this Bill represents. It is important, as he says, that people know who their MP is.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Meanwhile, does the noble Lord beg leave to withdraw it?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
A little later than we planned, the Committee will now adjourn for 15 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 15
Lord Lennie
“Electorate per constituency
(1) Rule 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per constituency) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (a), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”.(3) In paragraph (b), for “105%” substitute “107.5%”.”
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, if we did not know it before, we now know that this will be an important issue, and it might go on for a little while. I do not intend to delay progress with a lengthy speech. I want to make what I think are the essential points about 7.5% replacing 5% tolerance levels in the Bill. Incidentally, we can almost safely ignore the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which is coming later, to reduce the size of tolerance to 2.5% as simply ridiculous. It is never going to happen—but I know it will be debated.
So why 7.5%? It would set variance levels against the normal size of constituencies to allow the Boundary Commissions sufficient latitude to determine where boundaries lay. Incidentally, when the figure of 600 constituencies was proposed, 5% tolerance levels were still part of the proposed legislation that never saw the light of day. That would have given a variance higher than the 7.5% based on 650 constituencies, given that the size will significantly reduce. Therefore, the numbers do matter to the argument. This is important to constituents because it will make it less likely that they will move from one constituency to another, allowing MPs, as we heard on the previous day in Committee, to build bonds and relationships with their constituencies.
The reason why 7.5% seems sufficient comes from evidence taken in the Commons Select Committee from Dr Rossiter, who demonstrated that having tolerance levels of up to 8% has a significant impact on constituencies—and after that it is a diminishing return. I therefore argue that 7.5% is a better level at which to set tolerance than, say, 10%, which will be argued by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, because the amount of benefit between 7.5%, 8.5%, 9.5% and 10% is significantly less than on the way up to 7.5% from a 5% tolerance level.
There is a difficulty in the redistribution of, say, 16,000 electors to neighbouring constituencies in the event of one ceasing to exist, and the knock-on effect is felt most in neighbouring constituencies. However, it is not just in these that the impact happens; it happens as a ripple effect across county areas, beyond these into other counties and so on. That impacts on the relationship between constituencies and local authority boundaries and therefore makes it more likely that we will have ward splittings and all kinds of other means by which the Boundary Commissions can set constituencies at the 650 level with the 5% tolerance applying within them.
The ripple effect becomes more of a wave. Therefore, by giving tolerance levels the variation that we seek, you reduce the disruption to electors and the impact on the relationship between elected representatives and constituents, and you increase the political stability that is felt and needed in terms of the ongoing relationships that exist between constituents and their representatives.
In giving this presentation, I am also grateful to Greg Cook, who is a long-time researcher of these things. He has conclusively shown that these variations are not the thing upon which outcomes of elections are decided. This is not a partisan plea from the Labour Party to seek greater influence in the outcome of elections. What determines these outcomes are events that take place as a result of Governments’ and Oppositions’ competence in responding to the challenges that they face: the “events”, as Macmillan called them, not the size of the tolerance levels around constituencies. If you broaden the tolerance levels, you give the Boundary Commissions a greater chance of getting constituencies that are right and felt to be so by communities and their elected representatives.
So I ask the Government, before concluding this position, to think carefully about what works best in the interests of the whole nation.
Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
My Lords, these various amendments remind us of a fundamental and inherent contradiction in a key aspect of this Bill. That is to say that, on the one hand, we are told repeatedly by the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the whole heart and function of the Bill is to provide as near as possible arithmetic equality in the way in which constituency boundaries are determined, and that that is the thing that matters most. Some quite elaborate language is used to describe “fair votes” and “equal votes”; I stopped jotting down the number of times that these phrases were used by Ministers but, when Hansard is available for this Committee stage, I will make a little note of them all, because this is at the heart of the justification throughout.
That is on the one hand but, on the other hand, of course, we have—as has been mentioned from time to time—the section of the Bill dealing with protected constituencies, where precisely the reverse applies. It says that mathematical accuracy is an irrelevance and that what matters are geographic matters and cultural issues, as well as issues of accessibility, natural boundaries and the rest. For the avoidance of doubt, I emphasise that I totally agree with there being constituencies in that category. All I am saying is that some of the common sense that has led to that decision should be applied to the other 645 constituencies in the United Kingdom.
Even if you take barriers and natural boundaries—the sea is one, of course—the best that Ministers could ever say was that they are all islands, but of course some of them are made up of several islands. While the sea is a barrier, so is a mountain range or a river estuary, when it is difficult to get from one side of the estuary to the other. There is nothing in the rules that prevents you having anything other than constituencies that go across river estuaries because you have to keep to the precise mathematical formula.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish particularly to speak in support of Amendment 16 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard. Inevitably, I need also to refer to some of the others in this group which offer slightly different solutions to the fundamental problem with this Bill that we all agree is so apparent. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will break the habit of a lifetime and support a Liberal Democrat proposal, because I think that it would absolutely and precisely meet the circumstances to which he has just referred.
All those who have been carefully examining the psephology on which this Bill is predicated will have been hugely indebted to the independent and non-partisan academic analysis by the late Professor Ron Johnston and his colleagues. This was the core of the evidence presented to the Commons Public Bill Committee. In brief, it proved conclusively that the proposed very limited 5% permitted variance in almost all constituencies, except of course for the five exempted ones, was not an essential requirement in the context of the Government’s anxiety to improve the equality of vote value that they repeatedly claim to be their objective in this legislation. My noble friend Lord Rennard will give further details of that analysis.
Meanwhile, there is common ground across your Lordships’ Committee that the insistence on the 5% variance straitjacket, imposed on the four Boundary Commissions, will result in the following problems: first, more changes with 650 constituencies than were proposed with the previously proposed 600 constituencies; secondly, more regular changes for more constituencies and more reviews; thirdly, more consequent knock-on changes even to adjoining constituencies that are themselves within the prescribed limits; fourthly, more disruption of historic and naturally cohesive communities; and, fifthly, more disconnection between MPs, councillors and the public, at more regular intervals, than is either necessary or desirable. It is disruption which is going to be the name of the game if we let the 5% stand.
We were told during the coalition that these latter reasons were basically those that motivated the then Conservative Leader of our House to recommend to the Prime Minister that the variance be 10%. I mentioned on Tuesday that some 20 of those who contributed to the Second Reading debate, from all parts of the House, expressed concern about the 5% limit at present in the Bill. We can, perhaps, take it as read that there is a strong argument for more flexibility. The question in this debate is how we should adjust the figure.
Our Amendment 16 recommends a normal 8% variance but permits each of the Boundary Commissions to explore the validity of 10% where exceptional circumstances demand it, in each of the nations of the UK. That would be very relevant to the concerns expressed about local problems to be addressed in the previous debate. This might include avoiding crossing major administrative boundaries—for example, in English counties and unitary authorities—or greater problems of rurality and limited transport links, or other special factors. Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act makes detailed references to which we can refer and to which our amendment refers. My noble friend Lord Rennard will pay special attention to some of those.
I recall that in my then North Cornwall constituency, before boundaries were redrawn, to drive from one advice surgery at one end to the next one at the other end could take 90 minutes in winter but up to 150 minutes at the height of the summer holiday season. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, might note that that involved getting around an estuary. Let us compare that with some inner-city constituencies where a similar electorate can be conveniently served by a short cycle ride or even an energetic jogger.
As has been emphasised by all participants at all stages of the Bill, our prime concern should be for the effect on the individual residents, groups and communities in a distinct area rather than their political representatives or local political parties. That is why we prefer our formulation in Amendment 16 to those in Amendment 15 or Amendment 17. The former seems to us too restrictive and not to recognise the special local circumstances to which I have referred. Some areas will certainly require more variation than 7.5%. I think that is widely acknowledged across the Committee. The latter provides so much variation universally that it fails to accept the significance of a smaller number of potential constituencies with unusual requirements. However, the common cause we all recognise is that the unacceptable level and regularity of disruption, implicit in this current 5% straitjacket, must be avoided. Between now and Report we may be able to achieve a consensus on the optimum solution.
Finally, I suspect that the author of Amendment 19 has not had the advantage of educating himself by reference to the exhaustive independent academic analysis to which I referred earlier. The rest of us hope that the Minister will accept the strength of the case for greater flexibility that so many of your Lordships are advancing. I hope that he is listening.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord True, had only just entered the House, in 2010, when we did the 2011 Bill late into the night, night after night. I do not know how that relates to his extreme reluctance to draw any time limit to business tonight or determination to get to the Government’s target. We may well make it anyway, but it would be very disappointing if we were left short of time to have these important arguments. Indeed, it would only prolong Report in a way that none of us would really want to see.
I will focus, because I do not want to speak for any longer than I have to, on the central logic that underlies the Government’s proposal of 5% in this Bill, which, as the Minister said earlier—I thank him giving me the text—is that each vote must have the same value. The Government realise that they cannot achieve that just through boundary changes. The only way for each vote to have equal value would be to have PR on a national scale, and then each vote would have equal value indeed. I suspect that there is no majority even in this Committee that would favour that approach; most of us would like to see a preservation of the constituency-based system, for very good reasons. Therefore, we do not want to see complete equality of votes.
The more you look at this proposition of the equal vote, the less it stands up. First, the Bill does not pretend to provide equality of votes; within the 5% each way margin, it provides equalities of electorates, which are very different things, because turnouts are very different in different seats. The Government are not even potentially achieving the objective that they have set themselves of equality of votes. Equality of electorates is no doubt a useful surrogate, and you could imagine a system—I could design one, given a few months—in which the Boundary Commission was told to project the likely turnout in each seat, and do that within 5% each way. I do not think that that would prove a very comprehensible system, although it would certainly be a sensible and logical one if you really wanted to equalise votes. But the Government do not really want to equalise votes—they just say they do. They just want to equalise electorates, and there it can.
The second problem with this argument about equalising votes is that only some votes count. Only votes in marginal seats count; all the rest of the seats are in large piles. The occupants of safe seats build up huge majorities, and they make no difference whatever to the national result—nor, when people go and cast those votes, have they any reason to think that it is even remotely possible that their act of civic discipline will change the result of the general election one iota. This is not a sensible goal when most votes do not count under the system that the Government provide.
Thirdly, if you start to look at results and not just high theory, we actually have a gross inequality in votes. Each Conservative Member at the last general election had the support on average of 38,300 voters. For each Labour MP there were 50,800 votes. But to get a Liberal Democrat in required 336,000 votes nationwide, so there is a factor of 10 in the efficiency of vote use against the Liberal Democrats. Interestingly, with all this talk about Scottish and Welsh representation, it may be said that the present system greatly favours Plaid and the SNP. The SNP needed only 26,000 votes per seat, and Plaid only 36,000—less, even, than the Conservatives, so they were favoured by it. But it is a grossly unequal system. There may be good reasons for that, but it is not an equal system. It takes the wind out of the argument that this is somehow a Bill about inequality.
Let us get away from electoral theory and go into the practice of the matter. What you are trying to do with boundaries is to weigh up various important factors and reach some kind of balance. There is no religious solution or mathematical formula that does it for you; you are trying to get to a reasonable solution. Yes, reasonable equality of votes is one factor that should be taken into account. We do not want to go back to Old Sarum, with its two voters choosing a single Member. There has to be reasonable equality between the sizes, but there are many other extraordinarily important factors that have to be weighed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the erudition of my noble friend, in every sense of the word, Lord Lipsey, whose amendment I support. He gave us a very good analysis of the Minister’s obsession with equal votes, pointing out that in safe seats, it does not have much of an influence. He also referred to turnouts. There is also the scandal of non-registration of many people who ought to be on the voters’ roll. There is a whole range of issues there and no one knows them better than my noble friend Lord Lipsey.
I did not want to intervene after the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, but I was a wee bit disappointed by her response to the last debate. I am afraid that she did not seem to understand some of the issues. I hope she will do some homework before we get to Report, because this is a very important matter. As I gather from the conversations that took place while we were adjourned, everyone agrees that this is an important issue.
We will come again to the general issue of flexibility at the next session of the Committee when we deal with my amendment in relation to local ties versus arithmetic, and the constant obsession with getting each constituency arithmetically as near as possible to the others rather than taking account of local ties. This matter and others that we have already debated are all part of the issue of getting some flexibility.
The Government seem to be obsessed with 5%. The Minister needs to explain why 5%. Why have they come across this? Why is 5% particularly the figure that they have arrived upon? I look forward to hearing the explanation. My noble friend Lord Lennie in his introduction argued the case convincingly, using some very powerful arguments, for much greater flexibility.
I look forward with even greater fascination to an explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, of why 2.5%. I cannot think of any rational explanation whatever, except that, for once, the noble Lord may want to make the Government appear reasonable by making 5% a good balance between 2.5% and 10% It would be an interesting occasion to see the noble Lord take this opportunity to make the Government seem reasonable. Usually, he is—effectively and correctly—undermining, challenging and questioning of what this awful Government are up to.
I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendment. I want more flexibility so that council boundaries can be taken account of in Scotland, as well as Scottish Parliament boundaries, natural boundaries such as rivers, estuaries, lakes and mountains, and community ties as well.
When I was thinking about arbitrary lines, I remembered how the British imperialists in Africa drew straight lines and said, “This side is Uganda and this side is Kenya”, or whatever it was, not taking any account of community or historical connections whatever. It was just appropriate so that the British masters went in and ran their parts of the Empire, and they were arbitrarily drawn. Maybe this is not quite as arbitrary as that situation, but it reminded me of it. We must take account of local interests and community, of where people shop and where their schools are; all these kinds of ties need to be taken account of.
That is why I think 10% is the right figure. It does not mean that there has to be a variation of 10%; it just gives the Boundary Commissions flexibility. The commissions need to look at the constituencies carefully, and if they do not think there needs to be a big variation then they will take account of that.
I strongly support my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendment, and I am looking forward with real excitement to the following speaker, my “noble friend”—I use inverted commas because he is not my noble friend politically but he is in other senses of the word—Lord Forsyth explaining how 2.5% can be in any way be sensible.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I am not sure he is right about me not being supportive of the Government. I am very supportive of the Government, but it is our role in this House to hold the Government to account.
I did not speak at Second Reading. I thought it was a perfectly sensible Bill implementing a pledge from a manifesto on which the Government obtained a substantial majority, and that pledge was to update and create equal parliamentary boundaries. The Bill has been supported by the House of Commons, whose main concern this is, so I am very surprised that so many colleagues in the House of Lords want to second-guess the electorate and indeed the Commons by seeking to amend it in the way that I have listened to today and that I have read in previous debates. I am delighted that the Government have abandoned the coalition idea of reducing the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, and I very much support the Bill.
I have to say that I was hugely amused by the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord McNicol, on an earlier set of amendments, passionately arguing against what is intended here, which is to create equal constituencies. This is a measure that people have argued for since the last century; indeed, it was a central plank of the Chartist movement that they wanted 300 electoral districts consisting of equal numbers of inhabitants. I take the point that we have not yet got to the stage where the electoral roll includes all the inhabitants, but we can and should work towards that as part of a good democracy. However, for people whose heritage in the Labour Party is the Chartist movement to argue that we need something different from that when the Bill seeks to achieve it, and when the voters in the general election endorsed it so strongly, was, shall we say, interesting. The Bill seeks to introduce those equivalent constituencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that he thought 10% was the right figure. I have to tell him that plus or minus 5% is a 10% variation, and plus or minus 10% is a 20% variation. These numbers that appear small are actually very large if they are plus or minus. My amendment would simply recognise that when people talk about 5% they are really talking about plus or minus 5%, and therefore it suggests that the figure should be plus or minus 2.5% to allow for a 5% variation between constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, just dismissed that out of hand and said it would not happen. I have news for the noble Lord, Lord Lennie: I do not think any of these amendments are going to happen because this measure is what the Government won an election on proposing.
What has been central to the debate this afternoon, at Second Reading and elsewhere is that you have to choose. Either you have identifiable communities or you have equivalent votes. This Bill is about equality of seats.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are mainly to do with promoting constituencies that are genuine, from a community standpoint, rather than percentage purity. Percentages are useful, but they are a tool; community and geography should trump them. The Committee just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his amendment, which would make the job of the Boundary Commissions even more difficult than the Government have. The House of Commons Library tells us that the quota is likely to be in the area of 72,600, so 2.5% either side of that would mean a flexibility of no more than 1,800 either way—that is people, not percentages. This would be far less than most local government wards and would lead to the splitting of both wards and polling districts in all but the smallest of rural wards. That amendment would make a poor Bill worse.
The other three amendments all attempt to improve the lot of the Boundary Commission in, hopefully, getting cohesive constituencies based on genuine communities. The flexibility offered by the 5% tolerance from the quota gives 3,600 people—not percentages—either side of it. Amendment 15 would move that up to 5,400. Amendment 16 would move it up to 5,800, or 7,260 in certain cases. Amendment 17 would shift the figure to exactly 7,200. An amendment being tabled next week would move it up to 10,900 in Wales. I trust that we can manage to consolidate these amendments at a later stage.
One of the fallacies of being in the grip of percentages is that the 5% used in the 2018 proposals for the 600-seat House of Commons—which are now well behind us—gave a tolerance of 3,900. These present proposals would reduce that further, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, alluded to earlier.
I often try and look at the other fellow’s viewpoint. We can learn a little of Her Majesty’s Government’s thinking by going back in history. Over the years, the inner-city constituencies lost population and the suburbs increased. Conservative politicians thought that meant that their constituencies were disadvantaged. Perhaps the breaking down of the “red wall” might change that a bit.
I am pretty certain that greater flexibility will assist principally in giving, let us say, a modest-sized town its own seat, rather than having to lose a bit of it to another seat or having to take in a small part of a rural area just to make up the numbers. It is of course far easier to use the building blocks of wards and polling districts to build constituencies in large cities. Small towns and large seats in rural areas are the ones that will really benefit if we can change this business of percentage purity. I hope that we can do something to make the geography and community sense of our constituencies real for people to absolutely understand.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
With the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, next.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, these are important amendments—among the most important in the Bill. I congratulate all noble Lords who have made such telling arguments about the need for flexibility so that communities and local links are retained intact, and made them with a straight face and an earnest tone. For a moment or two, I was almost convinced, then I came back to reality.
All of us in this Room may not in a technical sense be noble friends, but we are political colleagues. Let us in the closeness of this Room, with no one listening in, be honest with one another about the arguments that we have all made to inspectors hearing constituency boundary inquiries. All noble Lords who were MPs, myself included, have sat at inquiries and made the most earnest arguments that boundaries should be changed or not changed because, as I said at Second Reading, they conformed with local travel-to-work areas, social habits, local boundaries, communities, cultural norms, mountains, lakes and rivers which could or could not be crossed, motorways, shopping habits or ancient history such as the routes followed by King Edward III when he invaded Scotland in 1356.
It is always a pleasure to listen to my pal, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock; I think that he would have made an excellent governor-general in parts of Africa in his dress uniform and cocked, plumed hat. However, I care to bet that, at some point in his distinguished career as a Member of Parliament for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley—is that not a magnificent name?—the noble Lord would have quoted Rabbie Burns as justification for including or excluding a part of Ayrshire. After all, there were few parts of the county to which Rabbie Burns did not wander in his travel to work as an exciseman or travel for favours in pursuit of many bonnie Jeans and bonnie lassies.
I think that I had a run-in my noble friend Lord Hayward who, wearing his hat as a national Conservative Party expert on constituencies, had a plan for boundary redistribution in Cumbria. At that time, Carlisle had about 50,000 electors, while I had more than 80,000 and the largest geographical constituency in England. Thus it made sense that part of my constituency should be added to Carlisle. I opposed it on the selfish basis that I did not want to give away part of my 18,000-strong majority, and the Labour Party strongly opposed it on every ground under the sun when the real reason was that it was afraid that an influx of Tory voters would lose it the seat. I recall us arguing for the creation of a new seat in Cumbria that was more than 100 miles long and banana-shaped, stretching from Barrow-in-Furness in the south and up the west coast, taking in Maryport and Whitehaven and almost reaching Carlisle. We said in all honesty to the inspector that this was a traditional travel-to-work route and a shopping route, and that people did this for recreation et cetera. The inspector said that, in that case, he would drive it next day and check it out for himself. I do not think that the poor fellow was ever seen again, lost in the wilds around Sellafield.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on a number of points that have been raised by other noble Lords before I move on to commenting on the core points that I want to make.
First, I pick up on the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in relation to the loyalties of constituents. If the Committee will indulge me, I am pleased to say that constituents are loyal on many occasions, and MPs are loyal to their constituents. One of my former constituents, Gary Sheppard, retires today as a doorkeeper in this House. I had the pleasure of refereeing him on a number of occasions, and I am wearing my Bristol referee’s tie as a compliment to the doorkeeper who is retiring this evening. I wish him well in his retirement.
I move on to the different interpretations of percentages. My noble friend Lord Blencathra gave some calculations, but perhaps I may indicate that, certainly going on the December 2019 electorates, the projection would probably be that the average constituency of 650 seats would be around 73,000, rather than the slightly higher figure that he gave. However, that does not deny the point that he made. I certainly did not come to blows with him over what he said when he argued with me. I remember Sir Michael Fallon making exactly the same point when I worked for the Tory party on a national basis. Basically he said to me, “What you want is two seats with 7,000 majorities and I want one seat with a 14,000 majority.” That sums up the view of most Members of Parliament when one is trying to deal with the issue on a national basis.
As for arguing that you follow the route that one English monarch followed when invading Scotland, that is for mere beginners. I remember listening to Hazel Blears argue that there was a distinct difference between Salford and Manchester because Salford predated Manchester in the Bronze Age. I think that that was the term she used, but certainly it was very common to go back way beyond the Norman invasion, and Roman times were cited on many other occasions.
There is a difficulty with a 5% target, although I support it. It provides a reasonable range, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra indicated. People talk of going down to 2.5%, 3% or 3.5%. Australia has scales of geography and difficulty way beyond ours in terms of distance, yet it operates on a target of 3.5%. I think that 5% provides a good range, and I say that because the presumption is that 5% will be the cause of all the problems. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made the point that one has to adhere to local ties. The other day I cited the existing legislation, which goes unchanged. Rule 5 quite specifically says:
“A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit—(a) special geographical considerations …; (b) local government boundaries …; (c) boundaries of existing constituencies; (d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes.”
Those rules are not changing.
However, the problem people start to identify is on the supposition that everything is perfect at the moment and that all will fall away if we have a 5% rule rather than a 7.5% rule. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, identified that that is not the case because it does not change political allegiance very often. He cited Greg Cook’s research. Greg Cook and I have shared many a hearing in one part of the country or another and I respect him enormously, but it denies what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, which is that people were storming in to see the Whips because they discovered that they were going to lose their seats because the range was 5%. They discovered that they were going to lose their seats for a whole series of other reasons, but it was not to do with 5%. It probably had a lot more to do with the fact that the number of seats was going down from 650 to 600 and you cannot force a quart into a pint pot.
I will give some examples of the difficulties one has at the moment. Take the MP for Carshalton and Wallington, who was formerly a Liberal and is now Elliot Colburn. He cannot get from one part of his constituency, Clock House, to the rest of his constituency without going out of it. Tom Brake likewise could not do so.
Equally, Lancaster and Fleetwood is split by a river. If you go from Fleetwood to the rest of the constituency, you have to go out of the constituency and through two other constituencies, I believe, to get back into the other part, except for the fact that you could, if you were lucky, catch the ferry. But the ferry finishes at 5.45 pm, so if you have an evening engagement or surgery you will have to drive round. This is not something that is specifically new.
If Jon Cruddas leaves the core of his constituency and visits Rush Green, the main route he follows, which he does not have to take, takes him into Andrew Rosindell’s constituency. Why? Because the boundary of Barking and Dagenham borough is based on the grounds of Barking Abbey, which existed in the 15th and 16th centuries. It makes no sense. Rush Green is very close to the centre of Romford and it should not be part of the other constituency, but it is.
Any noble Lord who knows the Albert Hall and the Albert Memorial will know that there is that slight sliver at the top of Knightsbridge—the museum area—which is part of Westminster. Logically, it should be part of Kensington. Why is it not part of Kensington instead of Westminster? Because Queen Victoria did not want Bertie in the suburbs, was the phrase she used.
A thin finger of land links Newmarket with the rest of Suffolk. I think that I am right in saying that if the Secretary of State gets off the train at Newmarket station he is in his constituency, but if he gets on it on the other platform he is in a neighbouring constituency. There are houses to the south that are not in his constituency. There is a vast range of these circumstances right across the country already where problems exist.
Boundaries do change. I represented what used to be the city and county of Bristol. It then became the county of Avon. It shifted its boundaries. I am a Devonian by birth. My father is Cornish by birth. The boundaries of Devon and Cornwall constituencies have changed. They are not immutable, as some Cornish friends of mine would maintain. The constituencies shifted in the 1960s. A series of problems already exist.
There is no question that there are problems with the ranges. Statistically, if you move to a broader range, you are likely to solve some of the problems. Some of the evidence has been identified, but as I said, I think that 7,000 and a bit is a good range.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
That completes the work of the Committee for today. The Committee stands adjourned; I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Vaizey of Didcot
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Wharton of Yarm
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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.
Covid-19: Military Operations and Support
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continuity of military operations and support during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has continued to deliver its essential outputs throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. While non-critical outputs were scaled back at the early stages of lockdown, these are now being restored. Social distancing and other safety measures, in line with Public Health England guidance, have also been implemented to further reduce the risk to the health of defence personnel.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, events such as the diagnosis of Covid-19 among the crew of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” hit the headlines. Can my noble friend reassure me that care is also taken to ensure continuity in service of less well-known craft such as auxiliary landing ship dock RFA “Mounts Bay” and HMS “Tyne”, the latter performing a valuable service protecting our fishing fleet?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that the safety and welfare of our people are paramount. Measures are in place to safeguard them and to reduce the risk to both them and their families. While workplaces have been adjusted to meet Covid-19 guidance, all personnel who have been eligible for testing if displaying symptoms have been tested, and we have followed public health guidance throughout. I can reassure my noble friend about the continuance of operations. There has been a steady drumbeat of activity on land, sea and air.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government, through the Ministry of Defence or the National Security Council, conducted any analysis of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on conflict and tension in the most important conflict spots around the world? Will that analysis, if it exists, be included in the integrated review on security, defence, development and foreign policy that the Government are due to publish in October?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Because of Covid-19, now more than ever we must be mindful of the long-term consequences of the decisions we take and of how the crisis could shift the context in which we operate domestically and internationally. The review will still be radical in its reassessment of the nation’s place in the world, and that will include accounting for the implications of Covid-19.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the height of the pandemic, the Armed Forces had 20,000 people at readiness to deal with Covid and up to 4,000 people deployed at any one time. If we are assuming a second peak and activity going through next winter, are the Armed Forces manned to deal with the crisis on an ongoing basis?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that we are preparing for whatever scenarios unfold as we approach winter. We will use the Cabinet Office-endorsed reasonable worst-case scenario, produced by SAGE, to inform departmental planning activities for the winter months.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
Will my noble friend join me in paying tribute to the pivotal role our Armed Forces have played domestically and internationally in responding to the pandemic? Is my noble friend familiar with and supportive of the recommendations in the Policy Exchange report Operation Covid-19, which encourages learning from our Armed Forces about analysis, planning and delivering in such crises?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her tribute to the Armed Forces; it enables me to put on the record my absolutely unbounded admiration for all they have done in the most extraordinary circumstances, displaying the very best of our defence professionalism. We all owe them a huge vote of thanks. They displayed throughout the United Kingdom —not just in England but in the devolved nations—their skills of logistical planning and strategic advice. I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing attention to the report to which she referred.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, in order to observe social distancing, were service personnel required to vacate their accommodation and expected to sleep elsewhere? What steps were taken to cancel accommodation costs and refund inevitable transport costs for those so instructed?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will have to undertake to write to the noble and gallant Lord with a more specific response. I can say that, in general, arrangements were made for isolation and that these arrangements were flexible depending on what was best for the individual involved. Obviously, we adhered to the rules in the same way as we would for any other UK citizen, with appropriate modification to take account of the atypical accommodation often found in defence. I shall write to the noble and gallant Lord with further detail.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, our troops have rightly continued their duties overseas for the duration of this pandemic, keeping our citizens safe and helping to maintain international peace. Can the Minister say how many personnel are currently absent from operations due to testing positive for Covid or being in quarantine? How often personnel are tested when they are serving in high-risk parts of the world?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am unable to give the noble Lord a specific answer on the number who are absent. I have data for the number of people who are tested and the proportion of these who prove positive, but we do not have centrally held data on the more detailed pattern of Covid-related absences.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, how will the United Kingdom continue to support operations and the NATO policy of deterrence by conventional means if we are to abandon land-based capabilities, such as tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, as is now widely reported?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I know the noble Lord is anxious to draw me on some specifics, but he will not be surprised to learn that I am not going there. The integrated review is under way, and it is a significant and important review. As I explained earlier to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, we are taking account of all changing circumstances. The objective is to be in a situation with the capability, robust and tested, to meet the challenges of the new age. We are living in a very different age to even 10 years ago with new threats and technologies. The integrated review will take all that into account.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Army said that it is ready to serve during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it could also support the NHS. Some 4,000 military personnel have been seconded to civil authorities. Can the Minister say whether the Navy or Air Force have also provided any support?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am going to undertake to write to the noble Lord with more detail. I do not have sufficient information before me to respond to his question.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I have been informed that at Army training establishments, such as Catterick and Sandhurst, all the trainees—who are young people, in least danger of catching or suffering from this virus—are confined to barracks for the entire period of training, not just the normal part of the course. However, the staff are, quite rightly, allowed to return to their families and the community. Can my noble friend confirm whether this is the case? If so, is it not contrary to a basic rule of leadership, namely leading by example? Should we not consider the morale and mental well-being of keen young volunteers joining the Army confined to barracks against all logic?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to my noble friend that what the Armed Forces have been doing has rightly drawn admiration, as has already been indicated in the Chamber. These activities require training, and it requires a level of training to continue, and to ensure that this happened, ongoing training has taken place. Stringent protective measures are in place after specific planning processes and full risk assessments have been conducted, all in accordance with government and health guidance. At the end of the day, the safety and welfare of our men and women is paramount.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, following that question, training is vital for sustaining the continuity of military operations. Can the Minister inform the House whether the pandemic has had any influence on operational training?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Obviously, at specific times certain personnel have been affected, depending on their health situation. We have taken steps to enable safe training, including social distancing during roll calls and physical training, isolating at the beginning of courses and reconfiguring communal spaces such as canteens, sleeping quarters and classrooms. Therefore, a consistent pattern of training has continued.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, NATO has already felt the effects of the pandemic: Norway called off Cold Response 2020, Exercise Defender-Europe 20 was restructured and trimmed and Covid-19 entered the Latvian-based NATO battlegroup. Meanwhile, the US European Command has cancelled or postponed a lot of planned exercises. Against this background, what steps is NATO taking to ensure that it will be able to perform core tasks and missions, in the short term and in the longer term, in the absence of these exercises?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord is quite correct that decisions were taken to pause certain exercises, and that was the correct decision with regard to the safety and well-being of those who otherwise would have participated. NATO and all member states are anxious to resume activity when circumstances permit that to happen. We must take account of situations in host countries, not just their health situation but what their particular requirements and restrictions may be. I am confident there is a resolve on the part of NATO and the member states to do whatever we can to continue activity, but we must always have at the forefront of that the health, well-being and safety of the personnel of all member states.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the second Oral Question.
Gambling Legislation
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to review gambling legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to review the Gambling Act 2005 to make sure that it is fit for the digital age. We will announce further details in due course. However, we and the Gambling Commission are not waiting for the review to make gambling safer. Already this year, we have banned credit card gambling, tightened protections for online gambling in lockdown and consulted on further safeguards on product design.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, given that we have a third of a million problem gamblers, including 55,000 children, and one gambling-related suicide every day, action is urgently needed. I am delighted that the Minister acknowledges that some action can be taken without needing to wait for a review, and, in fact, without needing primary legislation. For example, we have a fairly tough regime for games that take place in physical premises—a regime that includes limits on stakes and prizes—but, bizarrely, no such one for online gambling. As the online gambling companies cash in on the pandemic, make more profit and put more lives at risk, will the Government now take urgent action to address this particular problem, as recommended by your Lordships’ Gambling Industry Committee?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and his colleagues on that committee for its excellent report, which we are considering. The noble Lord is right to point out that online gambling has a much higher risk of harm than land-based gambling, but I do not agree that we are being slow off the mark to move on this. Operators are already required to monitor the way that their customers play and to take action. As I mentioned, we have already banned the use of credit cards for gambling, and we have been monitoring very closely during Covid-19 and beyond the trends in online gambling.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans (V)
My Lords, with the significant increase in gambling harms during lockdown, are Her Majesty’s Government satisfied that the Gambling Commission has adequate resources to do its work? Is the Minister content with the commission reducing its staffing to make savings at the very point when it needs to take additional action to regulate online gambling?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his questions. Actually, there were fewer people using online slots and casinos in June than in March, so there are some counterintuitive trends in the gambling market. With regard to the Gambling Commission and its powers and resources, we are considering proposals for an uplift in the fees that it collects from industry. In relation to recent stories about redundancies at the commission, it is always reviewing ways to become more agile and responsive.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the DCMS in its sport integrity review called for legislative action on the issue of match fixing. Will the Minister look to amend Section 42 on cheating in the now very much outdated Gambling Act 2005, so as to bring the UK in line with international best practice by introducing specific match-fixing legislation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know that my noble friend has worked very hard on this important issue. I cannot comment on the specifics, but I can reassure him that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the review of the Act results in making it fit for purpose in a digital age.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB) (V)
My Lords, the Minister has said that the intention of the Government is to review the 2005 Act to see if it is up to date for dealing with the digital age. It is perfectly clear that it is not. Will the Government treat as a matter of urgency completing their review of this Act and introduce new legislation in the coming year?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope I can reassure the noble Lord when I say, genuinely, that this is being actively worked on at the moment.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I want to raise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, introduced. We have the worrying situation of 55,000 10 to16 year-olds now gambling online. Action can be taken quickly on this; it could be taken in the context of the online harms Bill. Will the Minister say whether she is prepared to have something in that Bill that will bring this to an end and that the Government will place a duty of care on the gambling industry? If not, why not?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat what I have said already: we are going to conduct the review very thoroughly. We found your Lordships’ report most helpful. We also consulted last year on whether to raise the minimum age for playing the lottery to 18, and we will publish our response to that consultation in due course.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, will the Government make it clear to the FA, the Premiership, the Football League and the National League that the direction of travel is inevitably to ban gambling advertising on shirts and that they should prepare now for that reality?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Both gambling advertising and gambling sponsorship are subject to extremely strict rules, and must never target children or vulnerable people. The whistle-to-whistle ban has actually resulted in a reduction in the number of advertisements that children are seeing.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. There is evidence to link loot box spending and problem gambling among young adolescents. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that a relatively simple change in legislation could bring loot boxes into the classification of gambling and, as a result, they would become properly regulated and available only for those aged 18 years and older?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that we committed in our manifesto to tackle issues around loot boxes. We have announced that we are launching a call for evidence to inform the next steps on this.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) (V)
My Lords, is not one of the great problems the lack of statutory control of advertising, which largely lies in the hands of the industry? I am delighted to hear that the long-delayed DCMS review of gambling legislation is to be restarted. Can the Minister confirm that it will cover this important lacuna?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot be specific on the scope of the review, but the evidence is not clear about the link between advertising and problem gambling, particularly among young people. The evidence points rather to the behaviour of parents and peers in influencing them.
Lord Thurlow (CB) (V)
I remain deeply concerned that the Government continue to postpone primary legislation to deal with the gambling crisis: there are growing levels of addiction and an acceleration of domestic violence and family break-ups. They are standing by when thousands of young people slide into avoidable habits; there is poverty, misery and daily suicides. Will the Minister give a clearer indication as to a date when we may expect legislation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to be clear, the data shows that problem gambling remains at around 1% and has not changed over a long period of time. We are keen to get this review of the legislation right and we will bring the consultation forward as soon as possible.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
Does my noble friend agree that the new phenomenon of gambling companies using TV and radio advertising to apparently promote some restraint in gambling is actually having the reverse effect of further encouraging gambling, as well their own particular brands?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend, but I am not aware of any evidence that supports that.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, when the Government banned tobacco advertising on television, at that point they were convinced of the efficacy of advertising in persuading people to undertake certain activities. Eighty per cent of gambling marketing spend is now online. In 2017, about £1.2 billion was spent, and it is probably more now. Given the harm that gambling can cause to health, as well as society, will the Government ban online gambling advertising in the same way as they so successfully banned tobacco advertising on television?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Advertising, as long as it is done responsibly, is an important advantage that licensed operators have over the black market, so the noble Baroness’s suggestion is not without risk.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked. Does the Chief Whip want to come in at this point? No? In that case, we will move to the third Oral Question.
Music Industry
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the music industry, particularly the self-employed and sole traders, for the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the crucial role that the self-employed play in the music industry and that the pandemic presents a significant challenge to individuals in the sector. The Secretary of State announced a £1.57 billion support package for cultural organisations, providing targeted support for sectors including music. This fund will help preserve venues and festivals, which will ensure that musicians have a stage to perform on. We are committed to supporting the sector through this very challenging time.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, UK Music estimates that 72% of those who work in the music industry are self-employed. This means that thousands of people have not earned a penny since the lockdown began, and now thousands more are fearful about how they will pay their bills in the gap between the furlough scheme ending and the full reopening of venues. Will the Government finally accept that sector-specific support and extensions to the furlough scheme are needed for struggling industries, such as the music industry, to save them and the people who work in them from total collapse?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely recognise some of the issues that the noble Baroness raises. We do not have the data specifically for music, but across the cultural sector, about 75,000 people have already benefited from the Self-employment Income Support Scheme. We have aimed to structure the cultural recovery fund in a way that maximises employment opportunities for those working in this sector, but obviously we are keeping it under review and are in close conversation with sector bodies.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
In normal times, many musicians and music enterprises make part of their money from live appearances and touring, particularly across Europe. I have yet to have a reply to my question to the noble Lord, Lord True, last week as to what post-Brexit provisions for free movement of musicians and free passage of their equipment, and that of support teams, the Government are looking for in this week's negotiations. I ask the Minister here today: what are the expectations of her department in that regard?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, my department is working very closely with those involved in the negotiations, and we aim to negotiate reciprocal arrangements which will facilitate businesses, including musicians and groups of musicians, to deliver their services within the EU.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
I declare my interest as a director of Standon Calling Ltd, a music festival business. I understand that the funding available through the cultural recovery fund has separate allocations for small loans of between £50,000 and £250,000 and larger loans from £250,000 up to £3 million. Can my noble friend tell the House to what extent the smaller loans category has been subscribed? If it has been oversubscribed, will the Government direct funding from the larger loans allocation to the smaller loans category, where it is of greatest assistance to freelance artists and the self-employed, who have not been able to benefit from the furlough scheme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Unfortunately, the data my noble friend seeks has not yet been published. We are expecting Arts Council England to provide that data shortly, and it will obviously be shared publicly. In terms of reallocation, an enormous amount of work went into deciding the proportions within the fund, and those reflect where we think funds are needed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, at a minimum, the furlough and the SEIS scheme should be extended, but we need to go further. The Prime Minister in his Statement yesterday outlined plans to pilot mass testing in Salford for indoor venues. Will the Minister ensure that music venues in the local area are part of these pilots, and will the Government look into underwriting insurance to event promoters in the event of short-notice cancellation in any pilots?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can certainly confirm to the noble Lord that the Government really value the contribution of the arts, including music, are ambitious in trying to get venues open as quickly as it is safe to do so, and are considering all options to do that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Our cathedral choirs are one of the glories of our country, and they have been very badly affected by Covid restrictions, in that they could not perform, although some are just beginning to sing again. Cathedrals are large, airy spaces and rarely packed with people. I hope this will justify interpreting the Covid restrictions in a flexible way. Will my noble friend urge this on the churches, her colleagues and local authorities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a very persuasive case for cathedral choirs, and the Government share her enthusiasm and recognition of their important contribution. From 15 August, we reached stage 4 of our road map on the safe reopening of venues, which has allowed choirs, including cathedral choirs, to put on live indoor performances in front of a socially distanced audience. I am pleased to say that yesterday’s announcement about groups of six makes no change to that.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, newly self-employed musicians who started self-employment in the tax year 2019-20 have no financial support under the current measures. This is the younger generation, whom we need to nurture. Can the self-employed scheme be extended to include them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There are no current plans that I am aware of to extend the self-employed scheme to that group, but the £95 million fund announced by Arts Council England is trying to maximise employment opportunities, including for those early in their careers.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while the total funding made available by Her Majesty’s Government is welcome, the Minister will be aware—we have raised this with her before—of the problem facing freelancers who operate under a limited company and take dividends as a source of income. They are unable to claim through the current SEISS. This issue also affects high-tech start-up entrepreneurs. It is clearly a problem that has not been properly addressed. Can the Minister take this up with the Treasury and press for support to be extended to this group?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to raise this issue as the noble Lord suggests, but one issue that we have struggled with is separating out and identifying dividend income in the kind of examples that he has given us for those getting dividend income from their investments.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
Since the end of the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, many people in the live arts industry are surviving off money that they set aside for tax. May I ask the Government to consider being flexible about the tax payment deadline on 31 January, so that people can pay their tax when they are able to earn money again?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think that is more a question for my colleagues in the Treasury, but I am happy to pass it on.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, grass-roots music venues are a vital launch pad for emerging artists, and 93% of them are commercially owned. Emergency stop-gap funding to prevent imminent evictions is welcome, but does the Minister agree that a longer-term solution, such as a property management fund, is required so that this valuable network of venues is not lost?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness, as ever, makes a good point. Of course those venues are critical. We are trying to learn as we go along, and look forward to hearing about the impact of the cultural renewal fund, which aims to retain employment and allow some venues to reopen and others to partially open. We will keep the situation under close review.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister mentioned stage 4 of the road map. Is there still an intention to move to stage 5 this autumn? Is she considering a scheme, like the Chancellor’s for restaurants, of giving a financial incentive to the public to come out to such events, in a socially distanced way, and give a real fillip to those performing centres?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It was a little difficult to hear the second part of the noble Lord’s question, but I got the impression that it was something along the lines of “Sing out to help out”. In answer to the first part of his question, the Government still aim to reach stage 5—indoor and outdoor events with fuller audiences—as soon as it is safe to do so. We continue to work with the industry towards achieving that goal.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Electric Vehicles
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are investing £2.5 billion to support the market for electric vehicles. As part of our consultation on bringing forward the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans, we are considering what further measures are required to support the uptake of zero-emission vehicles.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister. The environmental benefits of transition to electric vehicles are well understood, but I wonder whether she has seen the recent report of the Local Government Association, Decarbonising Transport - Accelerating the Uptake of Electric Vehicles, which powerfully sets out the benefits, in terms of economic recovery and job creation across the country, of investment in the infrastructure necessary for that transition. Can she assure me that substantial investment in the infrastructure needed to support the uptake of electric vehicles, and bringing forward the date for ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars, will be an urgent priority for the Government?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for pointing me in the direction of that report; I had not seen it. I certainly have now, but I shall study it in more detail. She is right that one of the key action areas that comes out of that report is charging infrastructure. I think that all noble Lords will recognise that as absolutely critical. The Government and industry have already supported the installation of more than 18,000 public chargers, including 3,200 rapid devices. The Government have also made available £20 million to local authorities under the on-street residential charge point scheme. So far, 60 local authorities have taken advantage of that, and 2,000 chargers have been put in place. I recognise that there is more to be done: we need to get more chargers on the streets, and that is what we intend to do.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I own a Tesla all-electric motor car, and I support the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to encourage the Government to do more for owners of electric vehicles. The Minister mentioned 18,000 charge points. Does she not agree that we should be leading by example? I have written twice to the House authorities to ask them to put charge points for electric vehicles in the House of Lords car park, and have twice been rejected. Would she be so kind as to join my mini-campaign to show the country how we are leading by example? As I am allowed to make two points, may I also, on behalf of all vehicle drivers trying to carry out their business in London, ask the Minister to contact the Mayor of London to reduce the lane reductions that he has put in place—for example, on Park Lane northbound and Euston Road underpass eastbound—which are bringing London literally to a standstill?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising two important issues, over both of which I have very limited power. Obviously, London roads come under the remit of TfL and the Mayor of London. However, as my noble friend will know, we are in deep discussions with TfL and the Mayor of London, given their financial situation at the moment, and I am sure the conversation will at some stage turn to roads and their closure. As for my noble friend’s first point, about installing a charging point in the House of Lords car park, I will indeed join his mini-campaign.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too have an electric car and have been unable to park in the House of Lords because of bureaucracy and expense that we need to sweep away. In general, as you travel around the country and you need to recharge, that requires uniformity. Everywhere one goes, there are different credit card-type of memberships. Imagine if every time you went to a petrol station you found different sized pumps and that different memberships of organisation were required. We need uniformity all over the country. Will the Minister encourage that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has raised an important issue. It is a fact that some cars cannot use certain chargers. However, the Government also recognise that a huge amount of innovation is taking place in this field at the moment. We are very clear that all charge points should accept debit and credit cards and be freely available to people. We want the data, on whether charge points are up and running and where they are, to be freely available. We will consult on the powers we have through the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to mandate minimum standards for charge points which will include things like contactless provision, transparency in pricing and, as I have said, access to information.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s record on providing funding for green transport and clean transport does not match up to that of France and Germany. The German Government have doubled subsidies for electric vehicles to €8 billion. Will the Government commit to similar support in the run-up to COP 26?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness will know that a spending review is forthcoming. However, I do not think that it is quite right to compare one country directly with another because the type and scale of our interventions are many and varied. We are looking at many different ways because it is not just about throwing money at the problem, although that is often the solution which comes from the other side of this House. What we can look at is encouraging people in the right way to enter the electric vehicle world, as many noble Lords have done. I will give a small example. The green number plates that are to be introduced later this year will help local authorities to design and put in place new policies that will specifically address electric vehicles.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, if the EU is not a dirty word to mention, the EU has brought about a great deal of standardisation in the field of mobile phones. Generally speaking, you can charge them up anywhere in Europe. Will the Government use every possible means in their power to make sure that we get standardisation of charging points so that people do not have to wander from place to place looking for a charging point which they can use?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we work closely with the industry on charging points. While standardisation will be a good thing to achieve eventually, we must not stifle innovation.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Perhaps I may come back to that last point. I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has just said about complete compatibility in charging points, but I am getting the impression that there is a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government to do anything on this, certainly in the short term. How long are the Government going to continue not seeking to insist on complete compatibility of charging points so that they can be used by all vehicles, and indeed also address the issue of greater compatibility in speed of charging? These are two issues which are off-putting to some potential owners of electric vehicles.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course we want greater compatibility in charging points, but what we are not going to do is set out in regulations right at this moment in time to define exactly what a charging point needs to look like. We need to let the market work together because, after all, it is in the interests of those supplying the charging points that the highest number of people can use them. We are working in a collaborative fashion in order to achieve the sort of compatibility that we want to see in the future.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that one of the principal reasons that people are hesitating to buy electric cars is because they have doubts about the performance of batteries? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to encourage research into battery performance and to ensure that the technology and production of batteries is within the UK, not concentrated in China?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is right that range anxiety is one of the key reasons cited by potential purchasers of electric vehicles and why they are not doing it. Between 2017 and 2021, the Government will have invested £274 million in the Faraday battery challenge which is looking at how to make batteries more safe, sustainable, high performance, low cost and long life. It is really important that people are doing that so that we can have better quality batteries in our vehicles. Another point to make is that at the end of a battery’s life, they usually have 70% of their storage left over which can be used in second-life applications. It is important that those are investigated as well.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, as the use of electric vehicles increases, and with more charging points drawing from the national grid, what preparations have been made to ensure that there are no outages of supply, as happened in August 2019? That resulted in chaos on the road and rail networks as well as affecting supplies to many homes and businesses.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are very aware of the impact of electric vehicles on both overall and peak demand for electricity. We are looking at increasing the amount of smart charging in off-peak periods. For example, we have consulted on ensuring that all new private charge points have smart charging in order to help in flattening demand from peak periods. We will have legislation on that next year. I would also like to reassure the noble Lord that we have invested £30 million in looking at vehicle-to-grid technology, which is another way of using the battery in the car as an electricity storage mechanism. I thank the noble Lord for his question and assure him that energy generation is top of mind.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Question has elapsed, and that brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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 am afraid that I will immediately have to adjourn the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we start, I remind noble Lords that this is a Private Notice Question. I urge noble Lords to keep their questions short in order to allow everyone to get in; they should not make speeches.
Rule of Law
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 8 September confirming that certain provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol would “break international law” (HC Deb, col 509), whether they are committed to the rule of law.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government have not proposed any breach of UK law. On occasions, tensions can arise between our domestic obligations and our international commitments and we will always seek to resolve these, as we have in the past. The freedoms and protections that we all enjoy rely on the rule of law; it is an important constitutional principle and, as a responsible Government, we remain committed to it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General, for that Answer. Brandon Lewis’s acceptance that this Government are deliberately breaking international law will be thrown in the UK’s face for years. Expect dictators to justify murderous breaches of international law by relying on the Lewis mantra: “specific and limited”.
Demanding compliance with anti-Covid measures, yesterday the Prime Minister said:
“We expect everybody … to obey the law.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/20; col. 608.]
The Home Secretary condemned Extinction Rebellion for law-breaking. The rule of law is not pick and mix, with acceptable laws chosen by the Home Secretary or an adviser in No. 10. This stinking hypocrisy chokes our country’s reputation and destroys our Government’s ability to lead at home and make agreements abroad.
In June 2018, the noble and learned Minister, a law officer, whom I am surprised to see in his place, lectured on the importance of law, describing the law officers as
“champions of the … law within government”,
and said that their
“duty … is to ensure that the Government acts lawfully at all times”.
Jonathan Jones agreed and left. Law officers and the Lord Chancellor must stand by their self-proclaimed duty or leave. Otherwise, they will be dismissed as long on self-importance and short on the backbone that their great offices require.
I have two questions. First, how is the admitted breach of international law consistent with the UK’s commitment to the rule of law? Secondly, on what basis does he, as a law officer, remain part of the Government?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord broke up slightly when he was asking his second question, but I certainly understood the drift of his remarks.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Secondly, on what basis does he, as a law officer, remain part of the Government?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
I thank the noble and learned Lord.
My Lords, from time to time, as I indicated, tensions occur between our domestic legal obligations and our position with regard to international law. Indeed, in 1998, the then Labour Government passed the Human Rights Act, including Section 19 that required statements of compatibility to be made when Ministers introduced legislation. Interestingly enough, Section 19(1)(b) had an alternative statement, which required the Minister to say that
“he is unable to make a statement of compatibility”
with our international obligation but that
“the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
In 2002, the Labour Government introduced the Communications Bill with just such a certificate, because it was perceived that Clause 309 of that Bill could be considered to violate our international obligations under Article 10 of the convention. From time to time, we face these tensions.
Here, there is a very real tension between the direct effect of EU law pursuant to Article 4 and what would occur if we had no agreement at the end of the transition period and there was no determination by the Joint Committee as to the way forward under the Northern Ireland protocol. That is because there are other provisions apart from Article 4. There is Article 4 of the protocol itself, which determines that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs area. There is Article 16 that deals with societal and economic pressures that could lead to us being in breach of the Belfast agreement. All these have to be considered.
Against that contingency, Ministers considered it appropriate to provide, or ask Parliament to provide, a means of addressing these issues. At the end of the day, it will be for the sovereign Parliament to determine whether Ministers should be able to deal with such a contingency. Indeed, it will be for this House to determine whether it considers it appropriate for Ministers to be able to deal with such a contingency.
In these circumstances, I continue in post and continue to advise, encourage and stipulate adherence to the rule of law—understanding that, from time to time, very real tensions can emerge between our position in domestic law and our position in international law. It is not unprecedented for legislation passed by this Parliament to cut across obligations taken at the level of international law. In those circumstances, domestic legislation prevails.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I remind the House that this is not a debate; we are asking questions. If the next contributors could keep their questions short, and Ministers could keep their answers short as well, it would be to the benefit of everybody.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
Has a certificate such as the noble and learned Lord referred to a moment ago been given in relation to this Bill, suggesting that it does not comply with international obligations?
The Prime Minister persuaded the Queen to prorogue Parliament unlawfully a year ago, his chief adviser Cummings unlawfully broke the law on his Barnard Castle jaunt, and now the Prime Minister will ask the Queen to give her Royal Assent to what is effectively an unlawful Bill that quite deliberately breaks international law. The Tory shadow Counsel General in Wales, the highly respected David Melding, resigned yesterday, and the head of the Government’s legal service resigned two days ago. Having regard to the oaths of office to uphold the rule of law, why are the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General still in office, even if the noble and learned Lord himself clings to it?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, first of all, the Minister presenting this Bill has given a certificate of compatibility pursuant to the Human Rights Act; that has been done.
As regards the further issues raised, it will be for Parliament to determine whether, at the end of the day, it decides to pass this legislation. That is a matter for Parliament, and the Ministers have presented the Bill to Parliament for those purposes.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
My Lords, given that, by the Executive’s own assertion, they propose to break the law in a specific and limited way, are they to be exempted from the basic principle that the rule of law, which includes adherence to international treaty obligations, binds all of us? If so, where will this violation of constitutional principle end?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
As I previously indicated, my Lords, there are exceptional circumstances that arise, from time to time, when we find ourselves with a tension between our domestic legal regime and our obligations at the level of international law. There are also occasions when we find some conflict between different international law obligations. We adhere to the rule of law, but we understand the need to try to resolve tensions that may emerge if, at the end of the day, we do not have a post-transition agreement and determinations from the Joint Committee.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend simply not understand the damage done to our reputation for probity and respect for the rule of law by those five words uttered by his ministerial colleague, in another place, on Tuesday— words that I never thought I would hear from a British Minister, far less a Conservative Minister? How can we reproach Russia, China or Iran when their conduct falls below internationally accepted standards, when we are showing such scant regard for our treaty obligations?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are not showing scant regard for our treaty obligations. We are endeavouring to allow for a contingency that may arise very soon, which will require us to ensure that we can discharge our obligations to Northern Ireland. That creates difficulties, so far as the direct effect of EU law is concerned, if there is no post-transition agreement and no determinations by the Joint Committee.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
As a non-lawyer, I ask a simple question. Alongside the breach of our international obligations, is this not a breach of respect for Parliament and democracy, given that the Prime Minister signed up to this agreement, forced it through as part of the Act and knows perfectly well that it is nothing to do with the negotiations towards the end of this year, but an admission of complete failure to understand what he was putting through Parliament?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
I do not accept that. This is not a case of the Executive or Ministers seeking to act contrary to the will of Parliament. This is a case in which Ministers have brought legislation and laid it before Parliament for Parliament to determine whether provision should be made for the contingencies to which I have referred. This shows complete respect for Parliament and if, at the end of the day, Parliament and this House do not wish to confer the ability to deal with these contingencies on Ministers, they will not. It is a matter for Parliament.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Government have used terms such as “clarification” and “safety net” in describing the Bill. It is nothing of the sort; it is a direct abrogation of the withdrawal agreement. This is an issue about national integrity and the rule of law, as Sir Jonathan Jones recognised in resigning as Treasury Solicitor. I ask the noble and learned Lord how he would describe a barrister with whom he had negotiated a detailed written settlement agreement, who then explicitly reneged on that agreement by announcing an intention to act in direct contravention of both the agreement and the law.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
The situation outlined by the noble Lord does not reflect that which exists in the context of a potential tension between our domestic legal obligations to Northern Ireland and the terms of the withdrawal agreement, in the event that we do not achieve the goals that all parties intended, including the ability to ensure the maintenance of the Belfast agreement.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, tanks on the lawn will not, in the UK at least, herald the end of democracy or of adherence to the rule of law. It is shocking that the following clause is set out in government-proposed legislation:
“Certain provisions to have effect notwithstanding inconsistency or incompatibility with international or other domestic law”.
Will the Government either withdraw this derogation or provide compelling justification for its inclusion?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government will seek to provide compelling justification for its inclusion. Ultimately it is for this Parliament to determine whether that case has been made.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
While declaring my interests set out in the register and as chair of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, I ask my noble and learned friend the Minister whether we are rewriting or amending the withdrawal agreement or the Northern Ireland protocol.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, we absolutely are not. It would not be possible for us to unilaterally rewrite either the withdrawal agreement or the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. We understand that. It is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was so candid in his remarks in the other place.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
At the beginning of July, the Government allocated £25 million to help businesses in Northern Ireland manage the regulatory and customs consequences arising from the Northern Ireland protocol. By 29 August, this sum had risen to a staggering £355 million. Can my noble and learned friend explain how a unionist Government are allocating hundreds of millions of pounds to police a border, within the United Kingdom, which they claim does not exist legally?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
I am not familiar with the precise sums that have been expended, as explained by the noble Lord. On paragraph 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol, it is expressly agreed by everyone that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom customs area. We as a Government are determined to ensure that that remains the case after the transition period.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, government spokesmen have said all this week that we need to disapply aspects of the withdrawal agreement, which we signed, in case of no deal. However, does the Minister agree with his Irish counterpart Simon Coveney, who said in his address to the Dáil last night that the Irish
“protocol agreed as part of the withdrawal agreement is designed and empowered to operate in all circumstances, including in the absence of an agreement on the future relationship between the EU and the UK”?
If the Minister agrees, why are the Government risking their international reputation by setting aside the upholding of international law?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, that is because we will require consideration of not only the absence of a post-transition agreement, but the absence of clear determinations by the Joint Committee, which would render the Northern Ireland protocol potentially unworkable.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed. I apologise to those noble Lords who have not been able to get in, but it brings the PNQ to an end.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
First, I place on record our thanks to the teachers, head teachers, school staff, university and FE college staff and others making it possible for our children and young people to return to their education. I hope this will remain a top priority for the Government as we move through and, we hope, out of this pandemic. It has been wonderful to see my great-nieces and nephews and granddaughter joyfully going back to school in the last week. As a non-executive director of one London’s hospitals, which is in my record, I can testify to the huge amount of work going on preparing for the winter stresses.
But here we go again. We need to start by reflecting on why we do not have before us the incredibly important new Covid restrictions announced yesterday by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, which aim to deal with the new surge in coronavirus infections. In fact, the Statement has been made in the Commons in the last hour or so, and I suspect we will see it in due course at the beginning of next week. I accept that the hybrid nature of the House means that we will not be able to take it today, which might have helped us all enormously. It is not the Minister’s fault; it is just one of the casualties of the situation we find ourselves in. Perhaps, the noble Lord could confirm when the new regulations will be laid.
Yesterday, Mr Speaker said quite rightly in the Commons:
“It is really not good enough for the Government to make decisions of this kind in a way that shows insufficient regard to the importance of major policy announcements being made first to this House and to Members of this House wherever possible.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/20; col. 619.]
The Secretary of State made a Statement about current Covid-19 issues on Tuesday and failed to mention major policy proposals of which he must have had prior knowledge and which were already being discussed on social media. Thus, he did not allow a discussion of the current proposals, which the Prime Minister then announced in a Downing Street press conference and a letter which noble Lords will have received overnight. This suggests that the omission was deliberate and reveals yet again the disregard with which the Minister and his colleagues hold their duty to be accountable to Parliament, which is undermining our democracy. If Mr Speaker follows through on his threat to allow Covid-19 UQs at the beginning of every day to ensure that the Secretary of State can and will report new policy and be accountable to Parliament, I assure the House I will be arguing to take every single one in this House every day, so that the Minister can do his bit for accountability, too.
We have a Statement before us, press announcements made and a new law of six, but I need to return to the question I asked yesterday about what has gone wrong with the testing system. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would engage with what look like widespread problems some people are having accessing tests, rather than repeating the mantra about the high proportion of successful tests close to home, which is accurate, I am sure, but not the way to solve a clearly growing number of problems. I know the Minister will not shout at me, as his right honourable friend did to Keir Starmer yesterday, or accuse me of undermining the whole test and trace system when legitimate, evidenced problems are being articulated by many Members of Parliament and reasonable questions are being asked. The Minister needs to address the problem of the availability of tests.
Yesterday, I mentioned schools, where inevitably children will become ill. Parents are advised to keep them at home and get a test, and some are finding this impossible. Unsurprisingly, parents turn to teachers and head teachers for advice, placing even greater stress on our schools, which are working so hard to keep our children safe and educated. A reliable, rapid testing regime is vital, as we have said from the outset.
As for moonshot, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his letter, with his fondness for hyperbole, if the Government cannot even deliver testing for those ill with symptoms, how on earth are they going to deliver 10 million tests a day? I want to correct a statement the Secretary of State made in the Commons an hour or so ago, when he said to my honourable friend Jonathan Ashworth that the Labour Party was opposed to mass testing. That is absolutely not true. What we are against is incompetence. We are saying: how on earth will moonshots be delivered if basic testing is not working well?
The new regulations are meant to make it easier for people to understand. But does the noble Lord agree part of the confusion stems from the fact that some of these rules may be inconsistent with government messaging that people should return to work. Does he accept that, even where employers are taking necessary steps to facilitate social distancing, busy commuter trains, tubes and buses are not Covid-secure? On these Benches, we have said from the outset that one of the biggest barriers to self-quarantining would not be Covid fatigue but personal finances. Does the Minister accept that the Government need to go much further in helping people who need financial and housing support to self-isolate? Otherwise, how will we get on top of infections in areas characterised by low pay, child poverty and overcrowded housing?
Finally, to contact tracing: in Bolton, contacts were reached in only 57% of non-complex cases; in Oldham, 50%; in Blackburn 47%; and in Bradford, only 43%. Nationally, only 69.4% of contacts are reached and asked to self-isolate. These are Government’s latest statistics, and they make me wonder whether “world-beating” is yet another piece of hyperbole. On the effectiveness of testing, my colleague, the shadow Health Secretary, highlighted that only 69% of contacts were identified by the test and trace system, and I am afraid the noble Lord’s colleague Matt Hancock said he was wrong. He was right. I yet again have to ask the noble Lord—privately, if he wishes—to correct his boss’s record. More importantly, how can we improve on that record of testing and tracing?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, this is a Statement made two days ago in the other place, but it has been largely overshadowed by yesterday’s deluge of hyperbole and hokum. The Prime Minister said yesterday:
“We know, thanks to NHS Test and Trace, in granular detail, in a way that we did not earlier this year, about what is happening with this pandemic. We know the groups that are suffering, the extent of the infection rates, and we have been able, thanks to NHS Test and Trace, to do the local lockdowns that have been working.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/20; col. 609.]
If that is true—and given the record of the Prime Minister and Health Secretary, one is always entitled to ask whether it is—how come local authorities and directors of public health are given only limited access to the test and trace case management system and not given full access to the contact system? Why are the Government sitting on data or passing it to companies run by their mates, instead of passing it to local authorities, which, for weeks, have been trying to predict and manage the inevitable spike in infections that follows people starting to travel and going to school and university. Why are they not getting that data in a timely manner?
From the start of this pandemic, experts advised the Secretary of State to invest in public health teams and NHS labs that are numerous and easily reached by many communities, including in rural areas. Instead, he gave the money to outsourcing firms such as Serco and G4S, which have no expertise and have not had to compete for the contracts. He could have invested in local public services; instead he has built a system on a foundation not fit for purpose. On Tuesday, in the Statement, the Secretary of State for Health said of care homes that
“we have met our target to provide testing kits to all the care homes for older people and people with dementia that have registered to get tests.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 517.]
But on Monday, the Government were forced to apologise for continuing delays to Covid-19 testing for care home bosses and GPs, who are threatening that these will lead to more infections among vulnerable people.
The Secretary of State’s own department, the Department of Health, admitted to breaking its promise to provide test outcomes within 72 hours. Care managers have described the Government’s centralised testing service as “chaotic” and “not coping”, amid reports that whole batches of tests are coming back not only late but also void. Testing officials told care homes by email on Monday morning that
“immediate action has been taken at the highest levels of the programme to bring results times back”
within 24 hours.
“We apologise unreservedly to … you … and your staff.”
The ring of steel that the Secretary of State claimed to have put around care homes never was. With upwards of 40,000 deaths, when will the Government sit down with care home providers, local authorities and CCGs to develop a comprehensive system of testing and supply of PPE? It does not have to be world beating; it just has to work.
The Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday would have been risible were the consequences not so serious. Most ludicrous of all was the announcement of a team of Covid-secure marshals to enforce the new laws on public gatherings. The Government could have done any number of things. They could have announced resources to enable the rehiring of retired public and environmental health professionals, since there is a shortage. They could have given funding to local community and voluntary groups to communicate ongoing health risks and the law to communities. They could have given additional funding for trained police officers to work with health officials and businesses to improve adherence to infection control. But, no, instead we got another vacuous attempt to steal the headlines. Maybe these marshals, with no training, no resources, no local management and no authority could join up with the 750,000 volunteers for the NHS and the trackers, and like them they could sit and twiddle their thumbs, waiting for the phone to ring.
One thing we can be sure of is that this is another stunt which will be an utter waste of time, money and resources. Local authorities, police forces, health authorities and schools are using their professional expertise and local knowledge to plan effective public health interventions. They are not only following the science but also using it to actively protect people in their authorities. In stark contrast, this Government ignore advice, misrepresent the science and carry on winging it, but the data on infections and the lack of reliable testing are evidence that the Prime Minister’s bumbling bombast and the Health Secretary’s growing litany of half-truths are indicators of world-beating incompetence and, sadly, people in black and minority ethnic communities and poor communities will suffer the consequences. It is time for the Government to change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the thoughtful and informed questions from the Front Bench, and I echo the comments about teachers made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The return to school is a fundamental priority of the Government. It is a massive challenge for those involved, for governors, teachers, parents and school kids. I endorse the thanks the noble Baroness gave to teachers, who are performing incredibly well. The high return rates—percentages in the mid to high 90s—is remarkable and shows enormous confidence in the system among schoolchildren and their parents.
I also echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to NHS and social care staff who are preparing for winter. Enormous amounts of preparation are going into that. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I reassure the Chamber that engagement with social care, local charities and local councils is incredibly intense and we are working extremely hard with local partners in all areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked when the new regulations will be delivered. I am afraid that I cannot confirm the precise date, but I can reassure her that this Government are committed to being accountable to Parliament for those regulations and I look forward to that debate.
The noble Baroness also asked about the sequence of announcements. I reassure her that the Prime Minister brought his Statement to Parliament in good faith to update Parliament first. We cannot prevent leaks from happening, and leaks that get on to social media and then into the papers are something that we did not design or deliberately create. They are something that we regret. It would have been massively our preference for the Prime Minister to put Parliament first in his announcement.
The noble Baroness also asked about the testing system. The capacity of the testing system has never been higher: it has increased by 10,000 per day for the last two weeks and continues to increase dramatically. But demand has never been higher either, and there are good, laudable reasons why that demand is going up. The number of tests for supporting the vaccine programme has gone up. The number of tests to support our therapeutics programme has gone up. The surveillance of local prevalence has gone up, and the marketing around the use of tests by those who show symptoms has proved to be much more effective and the take-up among those who have Covid-19 symptoms has gone up. For those reasons we are extremely pleased by that effect.
However, there has also been a significant rise in the use of tests by asymptomatic individuals, largely tied to children returning to school. That is why we have been clarifying the guidance on the use of tests—that they should be used by those who have symptoms and not by those who are asymptomatic. One day, when the capacity is there and the system can bear it, I hope that we will move towards a system where anyone can have a test whenever they like, however they feel, but right now we must live within the system that we have. We are doing hundreds of thousands of tests per day and clarifying with teachers and parents that tests should be used by those who show symptoms and not by those who are seeking some other form of guidance.
Regarding the questions asked by the noble Baroness about the moonshot, I am a little confused. “If we cannot do millions of tests today, how can we expect to be able to do millions of tests tomorrow?” seems to be the question. I will answer it very clearly. The innovation around testing has moved much quicker than anyone could have expected in terms of scale, cost, accuracy and speed. The industry and the professionals in the NHS, academia and private business have come together in a triple helix to collaborate in a massive revolution in testing, which has changed considerably in this country from the days when we were struggling to do 2,000 or 3,000 tests per day to when we had the capacity to do 200,000 or 300,000 tests per day.
We have a clear view of how we can dramatically increase the tests. That clear view has two components: those tests that use existing technology that is purchasable in today’s world, and a clear idea of where innovation will take us in the very near future. This Government are committed to grabbing the opportunity of that innovation in order to dramatically increase the number of tests. There will be nay-sayers who will question whether that innovation will deliver, and undoubtedly there will be set-backs. Not everything will deliver as promised. However, I am extremely optimistic that we will be able to harness the power of science and innovation to invest in the backbone of our data and our delivery mechanisms, and to engage with the British public to deliver a testing system that enables us to return to the life that we love.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, questioned whether the testing system could be relied on to deliver results. Let me explain: the people of Luton and Leicester have used testing and contact tracing, and infection rates are dramatically lower—less than half what they were in late July. Those are two excellent case studies of how our system of testing and contact tracing has turned around difficult situations and pushed back the spread of Covid by breaking the chain of infection. The noble Baroness also asked what we will do to improve the system as it stands. There are three areas of improvement: first, technology; secondly, infrastructure, by which I mean the data and the presence on the ground; and thirdly, engagement with the public so that they understand how to engage and we understand better how to interact with the public.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the contact system and gave some statistics. I reassure her that since 28 May we have rung 272,000 people who have been reached by the test and trace system. Where communication details have been provided, the service has reached 88.6% of close contacts, and 78.4% of people who have tested positive have been reached. Within the bounds of epidemiological effectiveness, these are extremely impressive statistics. Compared with those from other countries, they range among some of the highest. It is an incredibly impressive set of results for a system that was stood up in relatively recent history. Local public systems are complementing the central contact tracing hub, and I pay thanks to all those local authorities that either work with their full-time employees, or, as is often the case, have employed local businesses, to support it.
We have hit our target on care homes—the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, might like to take a moment to celebrate that. We are also trying to work with a degree of transparency in our operations. I do not regret for a moment the fact that the operational senior leadership in the track and trace team has been on the level about the present supply constraints, with social care and the general public. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that care homes absolutely remain top of our priorities. Many of the frustrations the public face, such as longer distances to travel, are exactly because we have put care homes first and have therefore had to dial down some of the availability of tests to the public. We sit down with care homes to discuss winter preparations. An indication of that is the 31 billion items of PPE that we have contracted to buy for this winter—an astonishing figure. That pays great tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and the PPE team, who have built up a fantastic stock.
Finally, I would like to express a small amount of confusion about the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. On the one hand, she attacked the involvement of major private companies and central control of our track and trace system, but on the other hand, she attacked civic engagement, the volunteering of members of the public to support our track and trace system, and local initiatives whereby NHS trusts have brought back retired staff. The combination of these two themes is the heart of our success, and I celebrate both.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so that I can maximise the number of speakers.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, the consistency of messaging over time is immensely important to secure public support and adherence. Over the last six months, we have consistently explained that indoor and outdoor gatherings are significantly different, and that the scientific evidence has clearly shown much greater risk for indoor gatherings. Can my noble friend the Minister explain to the House why the Government appear to have abandoned this important distinction in their current guidance?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right to point out this important change. The truth is this: from the feedback we had from the public, and from our own analysis of the facts, we see that our guidance was growing increasingly complicated and was confusing the public. While the science may suggest all sorts of clever differences between one situation and another, and between inside and outside, the guidance is effective only if it is clear, understood and obeyed. At the end of the day, what we have done is to clarify some of the more complex areas of our guidance to make it more effective.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, sadly, Professor Spiegelhalter has seriously questioned the Prime Minister’s rather splendid Moonshot mass testing proposal. I understand his concerns. Nevertheless, can the Minister assure the House that he will press for a significant investment in saliva home-testing kits, to enable families with a parent in the former shielded group and with children at school to live a reasonably normal life? Children need to be at school, but the lives of these parents are now in grave danger—I am sure the Minister appreciates this—with the R number above one and, as yet, no daily testing capacity. Can the Minister say when daily testing will be available for these families and other top-priority groups in the country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that saliva testing is a massive priority for the Government. I reassure her and Professor Spiegelhalter that the positive error rate in the saliva test trials in Southampton has been incredibly low—virtually zero. From that, we take great reassurance that this will be an effective vector for testing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister accept that the reason for scepticism about the Moonshot gimmick is that the Government have a consistent record of overpromising and underdelivering? The Minister will know that the latest test and trace stats are not good: they show that 69.2% of close contacts of people who have tested positive with Covid-19 in England were reached—that is the lowest percentage since the scheme was launched. What would he say to Bridget Phillipson, the MP for Houghton and Sunderland South? Because Sunderland has a rising number of cases, she checked online this morning the availability of tests: no home tests were available and no drive-through tests could be found. Later in the morning, the only test offered was a two-hour drive away in Scotland. Why should anyone believe the ideas that the Government float from week to week?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely and utterly reject the noble Lord’s suggestions. I remember well the nay-sayers, the sofa epidemiologists and the sceptics who, when we had testing at the level of 5,000, poured cold water on the idea we would get to 100,000. We hit that target. We have made amazing progress since and we will continue to push for more testing.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Secretary of State has blamed the recent failure of laboratories to process tests in a timely way on members of the public who are not eligible—as he calls it—seeking to take a test. Is this not another example of Ministers blaming someone else for their failures? How do people know if they are not eligible? If they are concerned about something, what system is in place to enable testing centres to know who is eligible, so that they can refuse to test those who are not?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is right, but it is sometimes difficult to know whether you have the symptoms of Covid, the flu or something else. That is why it is a complicated matter. What we have seen through our engagement with the public in the last few weeks is people who show no symptoms of anything but who seek a test to provide themselves with reassurance. It is not a question of blame, but rather of clarification: we simply do not have the national resources to support that kind of activity.
Baroness Noakes (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a Conservative, it grieves me that the Government are pursuing policies, such as the rule of six and Covid-secure marshals, which belong in a police state. The Government have chosen a highly risk-averse approach, driven by guesstimates of hospitalisation and mortality rates, and doubtless derived from mutant algorithms. In the meantime, the economy is tanking. Can the Minister say what evaluation the Government have made of the economic and societal impacts of different responses to the small spike we have seen in infection rates? Will they publish that evaluation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is not a mutant algorithm that is sending people to hospital in France, Spain, Belgium and other countries up and down Europe, and it is not a desire to introduce a police state that is seeing prevalence leading to hospitalisation and death in many countries in Europe. It is our fear that Britain is going that way that leads us, regretfully, to put these measures in place; it is not any desire to exert state influence.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister keeps having a hard time, but that is partly because he is having to defend the indefensible. I had a completely different question to ask, but I have changed my mind and, instead, will follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the Minister’s response to it. In terms of transmission of the disease indoors as opposed to outdoors, which bit of science is confusing?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I answered the question as clearly as I possibly could. This is about communication and clarity and making sure that people understand the instructions; it is not about science. If that is not effective then the guidelines are pointless.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I was sorry to hear him say rather dismissively that people are clogging up the system because they seek some sort of reassurance, although they do not have symptoms. That seems to me a perfectly natural and human reaction. Can he confirm that basically government policy now is actively to discourage anybody without any symptoms in any situation seeking a test? If that is the case, what is his answer to the letter that he received from the directors of public health in the south-east, who are deeply worried that an area of low infection could easily become an area of high infection? What will he say to the universities that have introduced testing for all students, asymptomatic or not, because they want to protect their local communities, given what we know from America—from Chapel Hill, for example—about the absolutely devastating effect that university populations can have?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is not a question of blaming anyone or of in any way condemning people’s natural curiosity. However, the bottom line is that we have only so many resources, and people know full well whether they are showing symptoms of some sort. It is not appropriate that someone who shows no symptoms whatever uses valuable, scarce resources that could and should be used for more important priorities. We could not be more clear about that. Universities are using private testing facilities, and we applaud and support them on that. It is my sincere hope that one day we will have sufficient testing facilities to be able to offer everyone a test whenever they like. However, we do not live in that world today, and that is why I deliver the message that I do.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
The Minister has just said that a significant plank of the policy is not the science but communications. I fear that the Moonshot programme falls into exactly that category. I do not believe that it can be delivered at the scale that the Prime Minister has talked of, but, if it could, it would throw up false results that would overwhelm track and testing and mislead people, throwing both education and the economy into further chaos. Is not the right policy to target the groups that we know are vulnerable to this disease with the protections that they need, starting with care homes, and to allow the rest of us, and the economy and education, to move forward?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is right to be concerned about false positive results. However, our experience, our piloting and the emerging technologies suggest that that will be the case in a relatively small proportion of the tests and is entirely manageable within a mass population testing system. With regard to the idea that we can somehow identify vulnerable groups and target them pre-emptively, I wish that that were true, but this disease constantly confounds expectations and turns up in places where we least expect it. If we could tell people that they were going to get the disease, we would not have this problem in the first place.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer, but those who were formerly shielding, those whom we had identified as being most at risk, will be watching the rise in cases and some of this debate with anxiety. There were a number of problems with the rollout of the shielding programme the first time round, and we have new evidence about who is most at risk from Covid. Has there been a reassessment of the criteria for those who might need to shield this winter? If so, what is the Minister doing to ensure that this is communicated early and much more clearly to both those who will not need to shield this winter and those who might need to, so that we can reduce anxiety among those groups and protect the most vulnerable?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely recognise the problem identified by my noble friend. I reassure her that the expert sub-group NERVTAG is developing a predictive risk model to enable a more sophisticated approach to clinical risk and to identify more clearly those who need to shield. The model incorporates known relevant risk factors, such as age, sex, BMI and ethnicity. We are working at pace and will continue to engage patients, those on the shielding list, healthcare professionals and the voluntary sector as we embed this important insight into what we do.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the difficulties faced by disabled and older people during the first major lockdown, such as insufficient social care support services. Will the government guidance to this group now change to address those difficulties, especially if the R rate keeps rising over the coming months? Will he now consider switching off the social care coronavirus easement powers, which were meant to be only a temporary measure, especially as local authorities are now telling us that they no longer use them? These easement powers are a major cause of anxiety among older and disabled people, and it would be an easy thing to do—just switch them off. They are no longer needed, yet they cause untold anxiety.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that I have a precise answer to the noble Baroness’s question on easement powers. It was my impression that they had not been used in the vast majority of areas—only in a few areas—and that, where they had been applied, their use had been of a mainly administrative rather than practical nature. However, I am happy to look into the question that she asks and to reply to her by letter.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has responded rather testily to a number of your Lordships in providing answers. In particular, he failed to answer the substantive question from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath about why people were being sent, or being told to go, such extraordinary distances when they wanted and needed a test. He says that he does not want to have the blame game, but that is blamed on people who did not need a test going for one. First, can he tell us what those figures are and, secondly, can he reassure us that the messages he is now giving out will not lead to people who should be tested feeling that they should not bother the system? That would be just as big a danger.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I shall be extremely careful about how I reply to that question because I would not want to come across as testy. The noble Lord is right: it is a challenge to strike the right balance between guiding towards testing those who truly need tests because they have symptoms and trying to get those with less of a priority away from testing. I reassure him that, even under current circumstances, 90% of those who apply for a test get one within 20 miles and the average distance to travel is six and a half miles. Therefore, even though some of the anecdotes about being recommended to travel long distances might seem extraordinary, the lived reality of most people who go for tests is that they are quick, near, accurate and effective.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will not let people die for ideological reasons? Are the Government prepared to buy a vaccine from any country, provided that it is safe and it works?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this country has been absolutely on the front foot on vaccines. We have negotiated agreements with six different vaccine providers for 340 million courses of vaccine. We are completely open to anything that is effective, and we have championed the cause of fair vaccine distribution on a global basis.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that this Government’s policy on Covid is contradictory, confusing, hugely damaging to the country and, frankly, nonsensical. Should I have the opportunity, I will vote against it. We were exhorted, from the very beginning of this public health crisis, to save lives. As noble Lords know, some 11,000 people die on average every week in the UK under normal circumstances, so can the Minister tell us how many people under the age of 65 have died of coronavirus in the last 26 weeks? Of those, how many did not have some serious underlying health condition such as diabetes, obesity, respiratory problems or the like? If he does not have those figures to hand, perhaps he might write to me and put them in the public domain by putting them in the Library.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely welcome the challenge from my noble friend but, respectfully, I completely disagree with his approach. I want to flag two issues. The first is the enormous public support for the Government’s response to Covid and their adherence to the measures we have introduced. The second is the recent King’s College survey, published today, showing that on top of the deaths, 300,000 people in the UK have reported symptoms that last more than a month and 60,000 have been ill for more than three months. The effects of this disease go far beyond the “simply recover the next day” effects of flu; it is a profound illness that we are right to try to suppress.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, how is new technology being brought to the front line to deliver critical care and services across the country? Is the Minister aware of the desperate shortage of doctors and nurses working on the front line of infections, and that they are exhausted? What can be done to solve this problem?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness absolutely speaks my language when she talks about the technology that is being brought into the front line. My sincere hope is that Covid will bring a benefit to the healthcare system by being an inflection point whereby we introduce new technologies in a whole host of fields to bring in much greater community-based treatment for people, digital technology and the more effective sharing of data, among a wide range of technical advances. Regarding the workforce, I completely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s comments. I pay tribute to those who work hard on the front line and am aware of the challenges and difficulties they face. This Government have committed to recruiting 50,000 more nurses. We are more than half way there already, and we will continue to recruit to ensure that we have the human resources needed to meet our commitments.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what is the policy regarding the testing of domiciliary social care workers? What is being done to ensure that these people—who are at risk themselves and meet and support the very vulnerable, travelling around to different people every day—have full protective equipment and that they use it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right to emphasise the challenge of itinerant domiciliary care. Such workers were always a vector for potential disease and are putting their own lives on the line. That is why we have radically changed the guidelines. We have put more resources in place to ensure greater support for domiciliary care, PPE is stocked for them to use and there is regular individual testing
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, the new guidelines require political protests to be “organised in compliance with” government rules and
“subject to strict risk assessments”.
Who will undertake these assessments, when and how will they be undertaken—I presume they will have to be undertaken before any protest is mounted—and does this mean that the type of protest we saw the other day by Extinction Rebellion will by definition be unlawful?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that the risk assessment is done by the local police force in conjunction with Public Health England, but I am happy to check that and write to my noble friend. With regard to Extinction Rebellion, I found the protest last week particularly tedious but I am not sure if it will be outlawed quite yet.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has taken great pains today to stress the need to ensure that our limited number of tests are well used. I want to revisit the issue I have raised with him before: the list of symptoms as a result of which people are encouraged to take a test. I am sure he is aware of the University of Belfast study of paediatric infection rates, which showed that among children with antibodies a cough was no more common than among those without, while gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting and abdominal cramps were significantly associated with coronavirus infection. Given that many other countries, including the United States, and the World Health Organization list a greater range of symptoms, will the Government consider communicating clearly with the public when the tests are needed, based on the scientific evidence?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very difficult subject. A huge amount of work has gone on in this country and others to define the most effective possible list of symptoms. The honest truth is that this disease manifests itself in different people in a great many different ways, and we have done a huge amount to try to understand the list of symptoms to be described in a way that will capture the greatest number of people in the clearest way possible. We keep that under review, but the work that has gone into it could not have been more thorough.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, a programme of nationwide mass testing is exactly the ambition we will need to build confidence in the public and businesses before a vaccine becomes available. Professor Devi Sridhar of Edinburgh University says that the only safe way is mass testing. I agree with the Minister: look at where we were in March, with 2,000 tests a day, and now we have the capacity for well over 300,000 tests. Given that, why can we not get on with instant mass testing? The Abbott BinaxNOW test laboratory in America is producing antigen tests—10 million this month and 50 million next month—that give results within 20 minutes, and they are already FDA-approved. Why can we not do that at such speed? Can we get this into the market quickly? Likewise, Germany started testing at airports in June, and France did so in August. Why can we not start testing at airports quickly? Jobs, the economy and lives are at stake.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we could not be moving more quickly to engage with the producers of tests in order to sign up the resources we need to put in mass testing. That cannot be switched on overnight, but we could not be moving more quickly. On airport testing, the CMO has been crystal clear: he is deeply concerned about day-zero testing and about any but the most thorough airport testing measures. We were caught out on this at the beginning of the epidemic and we remain extremely cautious.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow up on the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about airport testing. Apparently, we have this world-beating system and many millions of tests that we can do, but now we have limited resources. The number of people who have had to cancel their travel arrangements, lost money and not come back—for whatever reason—is enormous and it is affecting the air industry as well. If our testing system is so good, surely it can be done at airports, plus track and trace, which has worked quite well, even for one plane that came from Greece. I hope the Minister will take this away and try to move it forward a bit more quickly.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is entirely right that the impact of this on our economy is profound, affecting the tourism economy, business and the professions. It is not something that we undertake lightly. However, it is the science-based belief of the CMO that the challenge presented by global travel is so profound that this is a step we have to take. When there is a surfeit of testing—when there is a vast amount of it—we may be able to put in place much more extensive measures, but, even so, the CMO remains extremely cautious on this point. However, we are working with Heathrow, the airlines and the airports to keep the matter under review. We take into consideration pilots and are working closely with them to try to resolve the issue.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not want to add to my noble friend’s difficulties, but I have received some worrying reports that pregnant women are prevented having the father of the baby with them right through labour or when undergoing related treatments, such as scans. This can be devastating, especially if there is bad news, such as a miscarriage. Can my noble friend the Minister do his best to get the rules changed across the country, so that parents can support each other at this vital time?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely understand the point that my noble friend is making. The issue of scans is compounded by the problem that many scanning machines are in small, airless rooms, where the risk of contagion is high. None the less, I completely recognise the point she makes about the pastoral and psychological effect of splitting people up at this incredibly sensitive time in their lives. We are reviewing it and we very much hope to make some progress.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will publish the science behind the decision not to test teachers and education staff—I congratulate them on being back at work—routinely and regularly, bearing in mind that there have already been school closures due to outbreaks? Is it a matter of science or of testing capacity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the regulations are not in place at the moment to test the millions of teachers and other important workers who are returning to the workplace on a regular basis. We have neither the science nor the capacity to do so, but we are reviewing this and looking at ways of using testing to restore confidence and enable a return to workplaces or other situations where social distancing is more challenging.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I encourage the Government to be completely open with the data and research regarding this epidemic and to put it all on the GOV.UK website. When we opened up the data on BSE, the problem was solved within two weeks by researchers who were outside of government. When Ofqual refused to open up on its algorithm, it resulted in our recent troubles and disasters. Being open with data results in much more criticism, but that criticism is much better directed. And it makes it much easier for people like me to accurately defend government policy.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely agree with the sentiments shared by my noble friend. Transparency has the effect of sunlight, putting a spotlight on information. It helps those who wish to contribute to make their efforts felt. We have embraced transparency: I cite the example of SAGE, where the minutes of its meetings and the data it works on are routinely published. I completely endorse my noble friend’s comments.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, given that there have been hardly any tests available to Londoners for at least the last four days, and probably much longer, can the Minister say what belief we should have in the statistics for the prevalence of the virus in the country, and in particular in London? Furthermore, the Health Secretary—when he was not blaming the public for the shortage of available tests—did admit that there were problems with a couple of contracts. Could the Minister explain what those problems are and why, according to the Health Secretary, it will take a couple of weeks to sort them out?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the statistics on prevalence are provided by the ONS. They were published yesterday and today—both the ONS and REACT figures. I would be happy to share links to those publications with my noble friend. Regarding the troubled contracts, I do not know the quotation to which she alludes but if she would like to correspond with me, I would be glad to try to figure it out.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid proceeding 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.
Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
That this House takes note of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/632).
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I move this Motion because these regulations contain important policy matters that make significant changes in planning law, as outlined in the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. These would otherwise not be discussed by this House. Admittedly, we had a debate under the affirmative procedure on the fees regime for these planning law changes, but as Members who participated will know, it was the substance of these regulations that was the principal concern of the House. Before addressing the policy changes themselves, I shall spend a few moments examining the parliamentary process which has led to this debate.
First, these regulations are being brought in under the “Coronavirus” heading: two completely separate matters are addressed by these regulations and only one is related to the coronavirus pandemic. The part of the legislation covering the building of additional storeys is both permanent and totally unrelated to the present pandemic, so it is quite legitimate to ask the Minister to explain why this planning law change is misrepresented as a response to the coronavirus health issue. Secondly, as our previous debate on the fees issue demonstrated, significant policy changes are being proposed through the weakest form of parliamentary scrutiny that exists. This is a perfect example of a major policy change being side-slipped through Parliament, first, under the cover of a response to the coronavirus crisis and, secondly, by the use of the negative procedure.
There are further changes coming down the line in the form of a suite of negative procedure regulations that also make big policy changes to planning law. I find this all the more surprising when the Government are proposing new primary legislation on planning law, which would be the ideal and wholly appropriate vehicle for consideration of these changes and would have had the value of full parliamentary scrutiny, undoubtedly leading to better legislation. As it is, the Government are giving the public a set of hand-me-downs one piece at a time, with no possibility of developing a cohesive policy. Why are the Government doing it this way? I look forward to a full explanation from the Minister.
I turn to the policy intent itself. The permanent change to planning law allows up to two additional storeys to be constructed on existing, purpose-built blocks of flats of three storeys or more built between 1 July 1948 and 5 March 2018, up to a total height of 30 metres. When the Government consulted on these proposals, the majority of responses were opposed. The opposition fell into a number of areas but, broadly, they were the lack of local accountability, the quality of the homes in the new storeys, access issues and the impact on residents and neighbours. Of course, upward development should be possible, but only with the essential proper protections for the existing community. These regulations introduce a new and permanent permitted development right that removes much of the protection for those communities.
The process of consultation proposed is a shadow of what currently exists. The expedited approval process may be suitable for considering home extensions, but the building upwards of new floors on domestic buildings are major schemes with large community impact. While prior approval notice is to be served on owners and tenants, within a very tight timetable, all comments received are to be considered only if they relate to the dual issues of amenity and external appearance. For example, will the council be able to consider the means of egress from the building? Is the lift core of sufficient size for the increased number of residents? What about negative effects on the service charges levied on owners? Then, of course, there is the quality of build issue—the materials to be used and the match to the existing homes. It seems to me that the number of new homes delivered by this mechanism will not be great, and certainly not the 800 a year anticipated by the legislation.
A three-storey property extended up to five would require a lift. If one is not present in the existing building, it would mean the construction of one external to the building. An existing lift in a building with five floors may not be a suitable lift for seven floors. Consider the protection provided for existing residents in these blocks. The developer will be required to produce a report on how they intend to minimise disruption; a report not subject to any checks will be produced by the developer. Anyone who knows this business will know that significant disruption is inevitable. The roof covering will need to be removed and the remaining roof area made temporarily waterproof before any construction can take place. It is difficult to see how this can be done without erecting scaffolding around the whole building for a considerable period, during which existing residents will suffer a major loss of amenity as a result.
Residents will turn to their council and their councillors to express their concerns, and they will find them powerless. Our planning system is constructed on a system of checks and balances, on local people and their councils providing the fair play our communities need. I would be very surprised if developers using this legislation did not meet substantial local opposition, meaning much more work for the local authority but without the power to provide any solutions. The light-touch planning requirements in these regulations offer very little succour to residents and neighbours, who will now find their ability to voice their interests and concerns severely limited.
These proposals indicate a Government making a dramatic shift away from strong and caring communities, with local councils as their facilitators, towards the aspirations of developers and a distant Government. It is through local councils’ transparent process of planning and regulations that the public can make their concerns heard. It is only through this process that elected councillors can make recommendations and insert conditions that ensure the protection of those affected and pay respect to the principle of community cohesion.
The Minister, in responding to the previous debate, called these regulations “gentle densification”. Well, the Government have got it wrong—they are anything but gentle. With the opportunity of the new planning regulations and the new planning law which the Government are providing, it would be wholly appropriate for the Government to take these regulations away, give them a comprehensive rethink and bring suggestions for any changes back in the primary legislation, where they could be properly debated.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I have a Motion to Regret the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord German. The regulations before the House today are indicative of the Government’s approach to planning; indeed, they are indicative of the Government themselves. They are another example of incompetence after a summer littered with U-turns. I begin by reminding the House of when these proposals first emerged. It was Thursday 12 March, and the impending crisis of Covid-19 was unfolding. It was on that day that the Chief Medical Officer first raised the risk from “moderate” to “high”. Public Health England announced that it would stop performing contact tracing, as it could not cope with the number of infections. As a result, the FTSE 100 plunged by more than 10%, the biggest drop since 1987.
It was on that day, at a key point—coincidentally, I am sure—during the unfolding crisis that the Communities Secretary informed the Speaker that he would make a Statement in the Commons. Perhaps he would be updating the House on the important role of local government in what had now been declared a pandemic. Perhaps the ministry would support the most vulnerable, who would soon be subject to self-isolation. No, on both counts.
On that day, the Communities Secretary announced that blocks of flats could add an additional two storeys without planning permission. Fast-forward six months, and while the Government should have spent the summer preparing for autumn and winter, they have spent it lurching from crisis to crisis, with not a government resignation in sight. The Secretary of State’s pet project —to transform the skylines of suburbia—is still being pushed through. All the while, the High Court awaits a hearing for claim of judicial review to block the move and local communities and local councils across the country are livid at the prospect. Yet for reasons unknown, this House is today still being asked to consider the implementation of these regulations.
I need not go through every issue with allowing developers to build upwards without consent, as this House has already well illustrated the flaws. I am sure that grass-roots campaigners behind the legal challenge will also do so. However, I firmly believe that, at the very least, we should make two preconditions for all residential developments: first, they should afford the resident a fit and proper place to call home; and, secondly, they should respect both the natural and human environments that exist around them. It is abundantly clear that new upward developments will not ensure either of these.
We have already heard concerns that these new homes will be cramped, undersized and at times poorly built. Surely many, if not most, will be unaffordable, since there will be no screening of the new spaces and no requirement for homes to meet Section 106 duties. Both the Minister and I are former council leaders, and I am sure he will agree with me that Section 106 funding plays a vital role in providing important community facilities that councils could not otherwise afford—particularly after a decade of austerity and underfunding of local government. There can be no doubt that new developments will impact the quality of nearby homes and communities, either by poor design or by the blocking of light.
Of course, there is more to these regulations than a new right to build additional storeys. As a result of this instrument, permitted development rights are also extended to allow for markets and motorsport events to take place more frequently without permission. I have no qualms with the Government supporting outdoor events, and they are right to explore ways of doing so. However, will the Minister explain why this measure has been lumped into this instrument, rather than including it in the Business and Planning Act? Surely that would have been a more appropriate setting for the House to consider the merits of this provision. There are also further provisions which make minor changes to compensation liability, as well as to the length of time for which land can be used temporarily. I would be grateful for clarification as to if, and how, the Government worked with local authorities on the drafting of these provisions.
I hope I have made it clear that the provisions of these regulations in relation to upward developments and the omission of Section 106 contributions do not have the support of our party. We will not vote against them today but will instead await their consideration by the Commons and the judgment of the High Court. I urge the Government to look for ways of restraining developers’ profits, so that opportunist developers have less ability to make life worse for our communities. If we have learned anything from the past six months, surely those of us in public service should be striving to make things better for the people of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the instrument to create two new PDRs, which will help businesses reopen following the lifting of certain coronavirus restrictions.
As a former leader of a local authority with a busy planning department, I know how important it is for decisions to be made as quickly and transparently as possible in order to aid a vibrant commercial sector, to create new business opportunities, to deliver those much needed jobs, and to reduce bureaucracy and cost in the planning system.
In the context of the Government’s post-coronavirus economic renewal package, I welcome that the regulations will enable local authorities and developers to speed up agreements for functions to be held either on behalf of local authorities or developers for an unlimited number of days to allow development. The regulations are time limited until March 2021 and sit alongside measures to support businesses reopening quickly following the relaxation of previous restrictions. Permitted development rights also have an important role to play. They can provide developers with a greater level of certainty, within specific planning controls and limitation measures, which will incentivise and speed up housing delivery.
As we have heard, the permitted development rights allow for existing purpose-built detached blocks of flats of three storeys or more to extend upwards to create new two-storey self-contained homes, while respecting the nature of the area. In some instances, creating new homes from derelict properties in urban centres can bring multiple benefits. They can help kick-start affordable homes, breathe new life into those areas and enhance the reform of our high streets.
It is important to note that the right requires prior approval in respect of the provision of natural light in all habitable rooms. Local authorities can refuse prior approval applications where there is inadequate natural light.
It is critical that we build faster, making use of available brownfield sites and supporting all our communities—both urban and rural—across the UK. I support the instrument.
Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for initiating this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his time on Monday, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I declare my property interests, as set out in the register.
As we have already heard, PDR is a complex subject which is not easily understood. It was conceived to bring back into use otherwise redundant office buildings, thereby reducing blight and increasing the housing stock. To do so quickly, it bypassed the planning process. As with many short cuts, it came at a price—a price which planning officers and their departments could do nothing about.
Reports written over the past two years or so by the RICS, by architects Levitt Bernstein, and by Shelter have illustrated a lot of the problems. In short, the provision of some of the worst housing seen in Britain for decades came through PDR mark 1—if that is the right way to describe it: crushingly small flats lacking adequate daylight, with windows out of position for suitable residential use, designed to squeeze the maximum number of bed-sits into a given floor area, cramming in as many rent payers as possible with little regard for the quality of life, mental health or general well-being of the people there. The image of a modern Rachman comes to mind. Let us avoid these well-documented mistakes; it is never too late. As we have heard, the forthcoming business and planning legislation is certainly the right place to deal with this.
The rights of leaseholders have also been touched on. I am not going to dwell on these, though I think others will. However, with additional floors added to occupied properties, there will be nuisance, breach of quiet enjoyment, issues of adequacy of lifts and services, and future service charge issues. Many landlords will negotiate with their tenants—they are the responsible ones. Others will not. It is likely to become a minefield of legislation and only a small percentage of tenants will be able to afford it. There is no regulation of landlords, no minimum standards and no best practice of building management. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned Section 106 agreements. Local authorities do not even get those, though they do have a greater involvement than with PDR mark 1. There is no contribution from developers, notwithstanding the super profits handed to them by government through this arrangement.
Finally, this PDR will lead to further abuses, if not checked now. It is important to learn the lessons from PDR mark 1. This proposal may add a few flats to the housing stock, but potentially at a great social cost.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much support the two eloquent opening speeches from my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, which set out why this proposal is what, in my vernacular way, I would call silly nonsense.
First, it will not have a major impact on the number of houses built or kick-start the economy; it will simply cause a lot of difficulty and nuisance in a few places. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council and of a planning committee. I cannot think of a single property in the whole borough of Pendle to which this would apply, so I am not talking about problems in our area.
The Government do not understand just how much pressure local authorities and planning departments are under at the moment. Covid and the cuts in local government spending have reduced many planning departments to a skeleton of what they used to be. Frankly, the new complicated proposals being introduced, such as this, will in practice not be very different from an ordinary planning application.
The Government say that this is a quick way and will be quicker, but the actual work required to deal with one of these applications will require consultation with residents and with statutory bodies—notably, in the case of districts, the highways authority, which will be the county council—and consideration of design and amenity. Highways design and amenity are just about the most important things people get worked up about when there are medium and relatively small developments of this nature being proposed. That it will somehow be much easier and simpler for planning departments is simply not the case.
The other problem is that it is yet another example of the Government micromanaging planning at a national level when planning is really about local communities and places. It is different everywhere. The idea that you can simply impose national rules like this without consideration of the importance they will have in a particular locality is quite wrong.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for introducing this debate—and for the way he introduced it—and to the Minister for the time he gave some of us on Monday to express our concerns. He will therefore anticipate much of what I will say.
The Minister made it clear in that meeting that the purpose of this instrument is essentially to help the Government meet their housing targets. I completely appreciate that but, as he will know, I do not think this is the way to do it. In fact, I do not think it will help very much; it will make a marginal difference, as we have heard—possibly 800 homes a year, but probably far less. Of course, none of them will be affordable because it is permitted development.
This SI will guarantee uncontrolled profits for developers who are looking around at the scale of building in the centre of London, for example, thinking “I want some of the action” and taking opportunities to do just that. It will also damage the prospects and well- being of residents of existing residential blocks of flats who in different ways will be put at serious risk by this.
The impact statement reflects the imbalance in interests expressed. It reveals the scale of profit potential for developers, which has been estimated by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership—which is very authoritative—to be between £20 billion and £40 billion. However, it is silent on the costs to the well-being and safety of residents, tenants and leaseholders from these massive interventions to existing buildings. It is also silent on the prospect of huge increases in the cost of enfranchisement, which will follow from the uplift in the value of a freehold. In this case, this policy absolutely cuts against what the Ministry of Justice wants, which is essentially a much simpler, more accessible and cheaper form of enfranchisement.
When launching the policy, the Secretary of State was, like other Ministers, silent on this point too. All he referred to was the opportunity for individual families and homes to add a storey. Yes, the policy is presented as one of gentle densification; there is nothing gentle about the impact on residents. I must declare an interest as a resident of a block of flats in London which is already threatened with such an upward extension. We have not been consulted; we do not want it; it is unpredictable and problematic in terms of buildability, safety and loss of amenity. We may well be faced with a choice between living in a building site—ceilings coming down and holes in the walls—or evacuating, and there is no compensation for the loss of peaceful enjoyment.
There will be resort to law, but only for people who can afford it. The Government knew from the start that this was an unpopular policy, as the noble Lord, Lord German, explained, and many of the issues raised were completely ignored. I suspect the Minister is discomforted by what he has inherited here; will he consider whether anything more can be done to protect residents by way of the planning Bill coming down the track, or can he commit to an early review of the policy rather than waiting the normal five years? Will he also seize the opportunity presented by the Law Commission to accelerate the reforms in leaseholding and look for ways to restrain the colossal prospects of developers? It is an unfair, unbalanced and inefficient policy, but we have a chance to do something about it.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I have enormous sympathy with the comments made so excellently by the noble Lord, Lord German, and others. However, I also have sympathy with the Government’s position on this SI. It is a mixture of temporary and permanent measures, which is a shame if it is badged as a coronavirus measure, which should not cover the permanent angle. Affordable housing should be introduced and increased across the country, but that can be addressed separately.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers Committee on how neighbourhood concerns will be taken into account, but I am reassured that this must be subject to successful prior approval applications. Those applications must have adequate provision for natural light; they will check to make sure that they are not on hazardous sites and that there is no extra flooding risk; it must be built within three years; it will pay the community infrastructure levy. There are controls on this via that route.
I understand that there is significant concern, but, like my noble friend Lady Redfern, I think the Government have a point here, particularly on the issue of developers. Big profits for developers are principally stoked by actions of monetary policy, which have deliberately inflated asset prices across the economy as a policy objective for economic growth. Without additional development, how can we address the housing shortage? Of course affordable housing is required, but that will be necessary in addition to any of this. I do not believe it is possible to build the scale of housing that we need to redress the shortfall between supply and demand without some disruption somewhere.
Therefore, I think that these measures deserve our support overall. However, I have one question for my noble friend. If the existing building has a prior planning condition limit on, for example, the number of units or how far it can be extended, could the owner of that building now make a new application to override that historic limitation for permission to extend it under this new SI?
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
I also thank the Minister for giving his time generously this week in the meeting that has already been mentioned. I certainly appreciated it. I give my wholehearted support to the two opening speeches, which said it all.
The ability to add two storeys to a block of flats is already happening. It is happening in urban centres, it is certainly possible, and it is certainly lucrative, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, outlined. Planning guidance issued over recent years has promoted greater densities, and developers have certainly not missed that trick. The Government believe this might yield 800 new homes a year—a very small contribution to the housing total for such an unpopular policy.
If this is already happening under a full planning permission, what is the Government’s rationale for bringing it into the permitted development regime at all? It is a serious question because under this updated PDR, most of the responsibilities for the local authority remain the same, including site notices and the length of the consultation period. Planners must also take into account certain aspects set down by government. To residents and the untrained eye, this looks, feels and acts like a planning application, yet it is not. Residents will not appreciate the difference.
What are the differences and why have the Government made them so? There is a lower planning fee, there are no internal space standards and no contribution to affordable housing. However, the most significant difference is that for a prior approval, what councils can and cannot consider is very tightly defined in statute. Government decides it knows best. That is in contrast to planning applications, where councillors and communities have their input about their place, in that full planning applications are determined in accordance with the council’s own development plan and with its locally adopted policies.
In short, under this PDR, the council has the same responsibilities but cannot apply policies that take into account the specifics of its place. It is the difference between building beautiful and having little choice but to approve whatever developers think they can get away with—and, regrettably, that happens. From the developer’s point of view, they are being relieved of having to match the space standards of the flats below—that is, creating substandard housing—they do not need to contribute to much-needed affordable housing, they pay a lower fee, and face much less council “interference” in the shape of local policies.
When such schemes are already being permitted while ensuring that standards are maintained and community benefit captured, can the Minister say why and for what developers are now being let off the hook and residents short-changed?
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, ever since I entered public life when I was chairman of the housing committee of the London Borough of Islington and its leader, I have taken a specialist interest in housing. I sat for a new town, Northampton, for 23 and a half years, which was a good experience for the wide spectrum of housing, whether affordable, council housing or unoccupied, and since I lost my seat in 1997, I have been a non-executive director of Mansell, which builds extensively in London and is now part of Balfour Beatty. I therefore claim a little of experience here.
My noble friend on the Front Bench should be proud of what the Government have achieved, particularly in 2019. You have to go beyond the Blair period to see the scale of change that has happened. It is all very well for noble Members opposite to talk about council housing, and so on—just look at the figures achieved under the Blair and Brown Governments, and even under the coalition Government. I therefore say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: keep going. This is a useful addition. It is not that revolutionary; it is not hugely incremental, with a target of 800 per annum. But it helps. It may not be achieved, certainly in the first few years, but I suspect that when we look back on it, 8,000 in 10 years probably will be achieved, and that will be a useful addition to the housing market.
Of course there are concerns, and I share some of them. The construction has to be appropriate and has to be safe, particularly from fire. We know why—we know what has happened in not so recent times. I am not sure there is a definition of adequate natural light, but that is clearly an important dimension, as are detailed floor plans. I am also not sure why this excludes the pre-war blocks, because if you look at London and some of our other major cities and towns, some developments were of a lower scale and could easily take a couple more storeys.
I am reassured. I believe there has been good consultation—I read the whole document right the way through—and I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, even if the official review is in five years, it would be helpful to the House and to those who take a particular interest in this market to have a review after three.
Finally, it is all very well for the Opposition to state that seemingly all property developers are rogues. They are not—they do a good job. I look forward to seeing this thing on the statute book so that we can get the contractors and developers cracking.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, sitting in an office in London dreaming up flexibility to the planning laws to encourage more housing sounds a good use of time. I know; I have done it myself as Planning Minister. I just want to give a cautionary tale. It comes from my former constituency and concerns the Westminster Road area of west Handsworth in Birmingham.
Some 20 years ago, when I left the Commons, the private rented sector in Birmingham accounted for some 10% of households. By 2018, it was 33% and growing. An area that was saved in the 1970s and 1980s by the urban renewal programme of half a dozen streets in Handsworth, half a mile from the Commonwealth Games village has gone backwards to the 1960s, according to residents. The successor to the specially formed housing association in the 1970s, which did much to enhance and improve the housing, is pulling out. Midland Heart housing association has no heart in Handsworth. The door has been opened up for a new breed of landlords to buy up the larger properties, either for HMO use or the more lucrative supported housing.
Recently, a for sale notice by agents Bairstow Eves stated, “For sale: potential 17 bedrooms”—a clear signal for exploitation. Across the area, landlords are converting garages, outhouses and even sheds into what are cynically called bungalows. For example, signs appear on the front walls of houses stating “Bungalow 6A and 6B at rear”. At 61 Westminster Road, a house converted into an HMO some years ago, providing 11 units, the landlord recently converted four garages in the back yard into living accommodation, with a secure fence to hide what had happened. There is evidence that residents of these dwellings are told to dump their rubbish in black bags on the opposite side of the road.
No. 229 Church Hill Road was a large family house. Used as business premises, it is now applying to be an HMO by claiming it was a “hostel”. No. 22 Livingstone Road, a former family home, has been converted in three social rented flats. Midland Heart cleared the tenants out and sold it at auction in Liverpool for £260,000 on the basis that it would generate an income of £18,000 a year. The new owner maintains that it is still flats, but locals see it run as an HMO, and just two of the tenants are generating over £27,000 per annum.
The HMO Action Group in Handsworth describes it as a “community under siege”. This is a cautionary tale. It ought to be taken note of.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Since the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was unable to join us at the beginning of this debate, I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my property interests, as in the register. I understand the laudable reasoning behind the first of the regulations. The permitted development right to hold a market and temporary use of land seem eminently sensible, given that it is recognised that events held outside are less likely, if properly supervised, to allow spread of the virus. I also understand that this is time limited, which seems appropriate. I would welcome clarification that that is indeed the case.
However, I have some concerns about the permanent permitted development right to allow additional storeys to be constructed on existing blocks of flats to create new homes. Many of these have been expressed in earlier speeches. Of course, anything that can be done to increase the number of new homes available, especially affordable ones, is welcome—but not at any cost. There must, as has been mentioned, be appropriate safeguards. I ask the Minister whether there is going to be any control of the design and visual impact of those potential new storeys. Perhaps even more importantly, what control will there be to ensure proper safety and access?
Presumably there will be issues for any existing occupiers of flats where storeys are being added. I understand that there will be no opportunity for their comments to be taken into consideration, although I hope that I am incorrect on that point. I wonder whether there will be any assessment after a period—for example two years, rather than five—to judge whether this has been a success, and whether further tweaking of the regulations, or, indeed, their removal, will be required.
Having made these few comments, I hope that I will receive some comfort from my noble friend that my fears are unfounded. But I am sad to say that I have a bad feeling that this is all going to end in tears. I hope that I am wrong.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I welcome the opening speeches by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport. For me, this statutory instrument represents an infringement of the rights of communities to their natural environmental space. It is a major change in planning policy, which really belongs in primary legislation. In that respect, I have several questions for the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord German, has already elaborated on his committee’s report. What consideration did the Government, and the Minister, give to the requirement for possible financial assistance for the provision of affordable housing, and the whole area of developer contributions? I recognise the need to uplift the economy, but why is there a need to underpin developers at the expense of communities and their housing needs? Why allow relaxed planning regulations in the guise of permitted development rights?
What consideration was given to other environmental matters, including landscape issues, and to the resilience of existing buildings in accommodating such top-floor extensions? How will the technical resilience of buildings be assessed and measured, particularly if the existing buildings are in low-lying areas? What consideration was given to the impact on the local environmental amenity and the needs of existing dwellers? Sometimes existing dwellers do not like this densification, or gentrification, as it is sometimes called. What consideration was given to prevailing public planning policy on development matters? Having had a cursory look at the measures, I would say, very little. I regret that the Government have not given that greater emphasis. Given the history of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, was any consideration given to the need to impose the requirement that materials in such extensions should put safety first, and be resistant to fire damage?
Finally, can the Minister outline why the Government have deviated, or want to deviate, from the developer contribution that has been central to affordable and social housing public policy for many years? As a former Minister for housing in Northern Ireland, I encouraged it, because it provided much-needed affordable housing and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, much-needed community development in local areas.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is an old saying, “Always plan ahead. It wasn’t raining when Noah built the ark. A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow”. Housing has always been a barometer of a nation’s well-being. It is a practical sign of whether people are at the centre of a Government’s policies. Clearly, we need to stimulate regeneration of our towns and cities. The economy has to start moving again after months of lockdown in response to Covid. Furthermore, additional homes need to be provided more easily and with less delay.
I recall, when I was a barrister and district councillor, being involved in planning applications which were too often frustrated by red tape. Ironically, the original symbolic meaning of red ribbon and red tape in the Bible was that of faith and hope. In modern times we have turned that symbol on its head, to signify the opposite.
I have some practical questions about the PDR for the Minister. Would any utilities—for example electricity meters and water tanks—located at the top of buildings need to be moved? If so, how will this be achieved? How will complex building works be carried out with individuals remaining in residence on the lower floors? What evidence would need to be submitted to the local authority as part of the prior approval process? Is this likely to result in higher fees being levied for applications for prior approval?
The Government have admitted that more than half of respondents did not support that proposal. There were four main concerns. First, there was the lack of public consultation, then there was the potential poor quality of the homes. There were also problems with access and safety, and the potential negative impact on others nearby. In response, the Government have promised that they will
“continue to engage with interested parties on the technical details”.
What does that mean in practical terms?
In September last year there were 216,000 long-term empty homes in England, which is more than 72% of the Government’s annual new homes target. Meanwhile there are more than 1 million families stuck on local authority waiting lists for social housing. In January this year there were almost 25,000 houses in London alone left unoccupied, the highest number since 2012. I am not against PDR in principle, but what are the Government doing to address the wasted resource of thousands of empty flats and houses, which could provide accommodation for homeless families?
The initials PDR also stand for the management term “performance and development review”. That is an annual review of how well a project is doing. I hope that in one year’s time the initials PDR will also mean positive dynamic results.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this instrument was laid before Parliament on 24 June 2020. It is already in force. It is subject to the negative procedure and will remain in law unless either House rejects it within 14 days, allowing for recess days, of its being laid. It is part of the Government’s economic renewal package in response to the coronavirus outbreak.
The regulations apply to England only and have two purposes, one of which is a permanent PDR to allow two additional storeys to be constructed on existing blocks of flats, to create new homes. I spoke on this subject in this House on 29 July, and I reiterate that although the instrument is for building two additional storeys on existing blocks of flats, it must provide housing for low-income and first-time buyers.
Another issue has come to the forefront recently: the increasing number of homeless people—families who have been made homeless because of their inability to pay their rent. Can the Minister confirm that the instrument will give priority to homeless people and/or young first-time buyers?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord German, on moving his Motion and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on speaking to hers. It has been an extremely important debate.
The Minister is to be congratulated on the department doing much to ensure that housing is being brought forward. We have heard this week about £12 billion being brought forward for affordable housing, and that public land is being made available for more housing. This is a genuine need, and I do not want to stand in the way of necessary housing.
However, there is a process point here, which the noble Lord, Lord German, outlined: why is this legislation coupled with legislation relating to coronavirus measures? I certainly approve, as other noble Lords have indicated that they do, of the action on markets and outdoor events. That is quite appropriate; they relate to coronavirus. It is hard to see how this permanent measure—and it is permanent—relates to coronavirus. I look forward to hearing about that.
If, as I suspect, this should not have been coupled with coronavirus measures, the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, become very relevant. Should we look at an early review of this legislation or additional rights, for example, for leaseholders being brought forward in fresh legislation? I believe fresh legislation will be brought forward shortly. I look forward to hearing about that possibility, and I am sure the Minister will want to be constructive about what can be done there.
I wish to highlight some concerns, which I have mentioned before, about the rights of leaseholders and enfranchisement. There is a danger that they are being short-changed; they are not really considered in this legislation as they should be. This point was raised in the other place by the honourable Member Sir Peter Bottomley as well.
Moving from the rights of leaseholders to the housing itself, concerns have been raised about space standards and cramped space. This is particularly relevant post Covid. I also raise, in parenthesis, whether there will be a general move away from housing in flats to housing with gardens—there is already evidence of this happening—and away from and out of the large cities. The Minister may want to say something on this in general terms.
So I have some concerns. I am certainly not against permitted development rights, but I wonder: why this legislation? I think there are ways that these regulations could be ameliorated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those points.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I had a great involvement with housing in London, particularly as a member of the Greater London Council. More recently, I spoke in favour of converting unused offices for residential use to reduce homelessness, particularly in London. Since then, assessments have indicated that some of these converted offices are too small to provide ideal accommodation because, although toilet facilities are usually available, there is often not enough space for a full bath or shower room. In view of the acute housing needs, can more suitable use be made of these potential home spaces? Will the Minister ensure that it should be a legal recommendation that any conversions or extensions under the regulations will meet, or exceed, appropriate living standards for the 21st century?
It is good that the Government are working on so many new assessments and improvements, and the quality of new homes, as stressed by the noble Lord, Lord German, is of importance, without any doubt. I support the continuing attendance to this question as one of the many that face us today.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank both my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for raising these issues today, and for making such powerful cases for this permitted development right to be withdrawn—though I am not holding my breath. They were not alone; their view has been supported by several noble Lords and this matter is the subject of a judicial review.
As a councillor, I know that issues about changes to the built environment are very much a concern of local residents. The current, locally based planning system enables residents and councillors to voice the immediate impacts and consequences of alterations to buildings. Of course, small additions or alterations that comply with current standards do not have to be considered publicly. The issue, and the subject of this debate, is where to draw that line.
I contend that extending permitted development rights permanently, via this back-door process, to allow two further storeys on blocks of flats that are already of three storeys or more, breaks that balance of development rights and resident and neighbourhood rights. This is what is at stake, with the gradual erosion, by this Government, of the rights of local people to have their voice heard.
One of the drivers for the original Town and Country Planning Act was to provide a process whereby standards for individual buildings and design that benefited whole neighbourhoods could be agreed and set. One of the purposes was to ensure decent, habitable standards in new houses following slum clearances. What is absolutely shocking to read in this SI are the regulations to ensure that new properties have
“adequate natural light in all habitable rooms”.
That should have been a given, and this demonstrates the need for planning oversight of new builds and conversions.
Many significant criticisms have been raised today. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made a strong case against what he called “PDR mark 1”, for constructing very poor-quality flats from office conversions, and hoped that PDR 2 would not replicate the failings. We need answers from the Minister: how are existing residents to be protected during construction? There is also the crucial challenge of learning lessons from the Grenfell tragedy—of the need to provide safe exits in case of fire or other major incidents. How will the recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry be put into practice so that safety really does come first?
The impact assessment published with the SI states that the Government aim to make better use of land by building upwards—this is not an issue in itself. The only reason given for this permitted development right is that planning permission
“includes costs and can take time.”
Actually, so it should. Raising a block of flats by two storeys may have a very significant impact on residents and communities; they should be subject to proper, transparent and public decision-making. Unfortunately, some noble Lords believe that bypassing the planning process ensures more housebuilding. This is simply not the case. The LGA estimates that nearly 1 million homes have planning consent but have not been built.
As my noble friend Lord Greaves rightly said, this is an example of the Government trying to micromanage planning while ignoring local people—and all this to achieve perhaps 800 new properties a year. My noble friend Lady Thornhill pointed out that this PDR now looks just like a planning application, with the exception that space standards can be ignored, to the detriment of the residents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has said, there are major issues to consider about freehold and leasehold that have not been addressed.
An early review has been proposed, and I hope the Minister will agree to this: none of us wants to be associated with creating new slum dwellings. What this all points to is the Government making lucrative gestures to their developer friends, and not to the needs of those in desperate need of housing. That is no way to build better.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting, in-depth and wide-ranging debate on the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for tabling the Motions and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report drawing the regulations to the House’s attention. I would like to take the opportunity to provide some further detail on the points raised by noble Lords in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised consultation with local authorities. We undertook public consultation on building upwards, which included local authorities. Other temporary measures were brought forward at pace to give flexibility to local authorities to hold outdoor events. The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Bourne asked why these planning measures were grouped with other coronavirus measures to kick-start the economy. This is to keep both sets of measures in one instrument; it is important to make the most efficient use of the instrument. It is possible to use an instrument to amend more than one order, which is why the compensation regulations were also amended. The noble Lord, Lord German, also queried the vehicle’s use in respect of permitted development orders. Negative procedure orders are the only way to amend the general permitted development order, as I understand it.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of community engagement being affected by this approach to planning. The permitted development right for building upwards on existing blocks of flats is subject to prior approval by the local planning authority. This allows the consideration of key planning matters. Among other matters, they can consider the external appearance of the building and the development’s impact on the amenities of the existing building and neighbouring premises, which includes overlooking privacy and the loss of light. There is no deemed consent and these planning issues can be raised. The local authority is required to consult with adjoining owners or occupiers of the land adjoining the site.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Randall both raised the issue of egress. New permitted development rights to extend existing buildings upwards allow engineering operations to construct the additional stories and safe access to, and egress from, the new homes. Both the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of disruption to occupiers and neighbours. We are aware that development can have an impact on both occupiers and neighbours, and that might occur during the construction of additional homes by building upwards. To ensure that this is considered before work commences, a developer has to prepare a report setting out the proposed hours of operation and how they intend to minimise any adverse impact of noise, dust, vibration and traffic movements during the building works on occupiers of the building and neighbouring premises.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and my noble friend Lady Gardner both made the point that this does not address the problem of homelessness. A number of noble Lords—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Wilcox—mentioned that this does not specifically contribute to the provision of affordable housing. It is true that the permitted developments do not require affordable housing provision and do not tackle homelessness. However, I point out that where additional floor space is created through the right, and the local authority has a charging schedule in place, a community infrastructure levy might be payable. In addition, registered providers or local authorities can use the right to extend their blocks to provide more affordable and social housing.
The quality of homes was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Redfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. All homes built under permitted development rights are required to meet building regulations. In addition, such developments must conform with any conditions required by the prior approval. We have introduced a new requirement that homes delivered under this and other permitted development rights must have adequate natural lighting in all habitable rooms. This issue was raised by a number of noble Lords in the debate. We expect that the developers will want to bring forward homes that are of good quality and marketable.
My noble friend Lord Bourne raised the issue of space standards. It is a government priority to see new homes brought forward, and we think that developers are best placed to assess the type and size of homes best suited to the local market. We know that some well-designed new homes delivered through both planning applications and permitted development rights are smaller than the voluntary space standards. We do not wish to place stricter requirements on homes delivered through permitted development than through planning applications. I should also point out that smaller properties can be less expensive to buy, opening up home ownership to more people.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the issue of HMOs. Homes delivered under these rights cannot be used as houses in multiple occupation. Local authorities have the power of enforcement if there is a breach of planning laws.
My noble friend Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, all mentioned the impact on leaseholders, potentially adding to enfranchisement costs. Freeholders will have to comply with the terms of any lease in taking forward proposals to extend the building upwards. The Law Commission’s report on enfranchisement valuation, recently published, includes an option for leaseholders to elect to take a restriction on future development of the property. This would have the effect of reducing the price otherwise payable when a leaseholder or group of leaseholders purchase the freehold. We are considering the detail of the Law Commission’s proposals and will make an announcement in due course.
My noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of prior limits on total units. You can apply to vary the conditions of a planning application. National permitted development rights do not remove existing conditions placed on a granted planning permission. My noble friend Lord Taylor raised the issue of utilities, among other issues. The right allows for the moving of existing plant—for example, the water tank or air conditioning units on the roofs of buildings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the very important issue of building safety. As the building safety Minister, this is obviously something I consider to be of the utmost importance. Ensuring that buildings are safe remains a priority for this Government. Whether homes are brought forward through a planning application or through a permitted development right, they are required to meet fire and other building safety requirements. The new permitted development right to extend existing buildings upwards allows the engineering operations to construct the additional storeys and the safe access to, and egress from, the new homes. In the interests of time, I will write to my noble friend Lord Randall on some of the issues he raised, such as the time limitation and local authority markets.
The purpose of the regulations is to enable businesses to continue to operate safely during the coronavirus outbreak and to support housing delivery and economic recovery. Together with further statutory instruments laid in July, they form a package of measures to speed up and simplify the planning process to create new homes on existing blocks of flats and help businesses to continue to operate safely and to respond quickly to changes in how communities use their high streets.
The regulations we have considered today introduce a new permitted development right which allows the upward extension of detached purpose-built blocks of flats for the construction of new dwelling houses. This builds on national planning policy to boost density without the need to build on greenfield sites. Permitted development rights make an important contribution to housing delivery, helping us to meet our plans for 300,000 new homes per year. These rights have brought forward schemes that might not otherwise have come forward.
In conclusion, delivering new homes is a key priority for this Government. These regulations are an important tool to help drive up delivery by simplifying and speeding up the planning system. They also form part of our response to help businesses operate during the coronavirus outbreak. Having introduced a new category of permitted development right to construct new dwelling houses, we are keen to ensure that the rights are operating effectively, so I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that we will be keeping their implementation under review and monitoring the impact. In the words of my noble friend Lord Naseby, this is a useful addition.
These permitted development rights make effective use of existing residential buildings and gently boost density. They avoid the need for sprawling greenfield development by focusing on existing residential locations and areas more likely to have access to public transport. The rights respect the appearance of the existing streetscape while ensuring that the amenity of neighbours is considered through prior approval considerations.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for a moment to reply to the Minister. I note that the issue of the way in which these regulations and those which are to follow, which are all in the sphere of planning regulations, was not answered in the debate. It is a matter of concern for us all that we will be faced with other regulations which will address the same issues. While we have not had the answers, I have no fear that we will have an opportunity to do so again in future weeks before us and before this House.
Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
That this House regrets that the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/632) restrict local communities’ ability to agree to substantial construction developments, risk causing disruption to existing occupiers and their neighbours, and may lead to the construction of undersized, poor-quality homes and a reduction in the supply of affordable housing.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 21st Report.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken eloquently on the problems surrounding this issue, and I thank them for the detailed and thoughtful way they have approached this most contentious of matters. As my noble friend Lady Andrews succinctly and powerfully noted in her contribution today, the Government should consider whether there is anything that can be done to put some sort of expectation on developers and local authorities for meaningful consultation with residents and, in conjunction with the opportunity provided by the review of leasehold reform, to look for ways to restrain developers’ profits so that opportunist developers—they exist; I dealt with them a great deal while leader of the council—are less able to make life worse for our communities. I reiterate what I said: we should be striving to make things better for the people of the UK.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid proceeding 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.
There are two Motions in the name of Lord Keen of Elie. The time limit is one hour. Motion to approve the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020 and one other motion—Lord Keen of Elie.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 July be approved.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House considers the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020 and the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020, which were laid in Parliament on 9 July.
These two orders relate to the process by which an individual may be required to self-disclose criminal records when applying for roles eligible for standard and enhanced criminal records certificates or have criminal convictions and cautions disclosed on a standard or enhanced criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service.
As noble Lords are aware, the criminal records disclosure regime is designed to protect the public, in particular children and vulnerable adults. We want to ensure that criminal records disclosure is proportionate, balancing safeguarding with supporting people who have offended in the past into employment. Criminal records checks provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service form an important part of an employer’s broader approach to safeguarding. They support employers to make informed decisions about an individual’s suitability when they recruit for sensitive roles dealing with children and vulnerable adults.
As noble Lords are aware, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the case of P, G and W on 30 January 2019. That judgment determined that certain aspects of the current disclosure rules are incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to a private life. The court found a rules-based disclosure regime for criminal records certificates is justifiable and in accordance with the law, but it found two areas of concern. First, the rule where all convictions are disclosed because an individual has more than one conviction, known as the multiple conviction rule, was found to be an unnecessary and disproportionate means of indicating a propensity to offend.
Secondly, the automatic disclosure of out-of-court disposals and youth reprimands and warnings administered to young offenders was found to be an error of principle given the instructive purpose of these disposals. The Supreme Court held that
“a warning or reprimand given to a young offender whose moral bearings are still in the course of formation, requires no consent and does not involve the determination of a criminal charge. Its purpose is wholly instructive, and its use as an alternative to prosecution is designed to avoid any deleterious effect on his subsequent life.”
These two orders are necessary to ensure that the disclosure of criminal records on standard and enhanced certificates is proportionate and fully complies with Article 8 of the convention. The two orders, read together, will have the effect that youth cautions and multiple convictions, unless affected by the other rules, no longer have to be disclosed when a person is asked about them and will no longer be subject to automatic disclosure on standard and enhanced criminal records certificates.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 affords offenders protection from having to disclose convictions and cautions once those convictions and cautions have become spent under the Act—the point at which the offender has become rehabilitated. The exceptions order lists activities or categories of jobs, where those protections are lifted. For these listed activities or jobs, applicants must, if asked, disclose their otherwise spent cautions and convictions, unless the exceptions order provides that they are protected. The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs, such as positions involving a high level of public trust—for example, unsupervised work with children—where more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate to mitigate risks to public safety.
Section 113A of the Police Act 1997 defines relevant matters which must be disclosed by the Disclosure and Barring Service in response to an application for a standard or an enhanced criminal record certificate. The two orders before us today work together to amend the criminal records disclosure system. First, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020 draft instrument amends Article 2(2) and (4) of the exceptions order to change the definition of a protected caution, being a spent caution not requiring self-disclosure, to include all those given where a person was under 18 at the time. It also amends Article 2(5) and (6) to change the definition of a protected conviction by removing the multiple conviction rule exemption from the scope of the definition. The effect of this order is that an individual with a youth reprimand, warning or caution, or those with more than one conviction, will no longer have to self-disclose their criminal record when applying for a role eligible for a standard or enhanced DBS check, unless one of the other disclosure rules is engaged. This amendment is necessary, as I say, to ensure that all aspects of the criminal records disclosure system are proportionate and compatible with the convention.
The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020 amends the definition of “relevant matter” by excluding the multiple conviction rule and youth cautions, including reprimands and warnings, from the scope of the definition of “relevant matter”. A relevant matter is a matter which must be disclosed by the Disclosure and Barring Service in response to an application for a standard or enhanced criminal record certificate.
The effect of this order is that youth reprimands, warnings and cautions and multiple convictions, where not affected by any other rule, will no longer be subject to automatic disclosure in criminal records certificates issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. As criminal records disclosure is a devolved matter, these orders apply to England and Wales only.
Those with more than one conviction will no longer have to disclose them unless one of the other disclosure rules applies. Convictions and adult cautions will still be disclosed on certificates if they are recent, if they were received for a specified violent or sexual offence or if a custodial sentence was imposed. Youth reprimands, warnings and cautions will no longer be automatically disclosed through these rules.
Where an offence has been committed, we have a responsibility to ensure that the public are adequately safeguarded and that employers can make informed recruitment decisions through the disclosure of appropriate and relevant information, particularly for roles which involve close contact with children and vulnerable adults or a high level of public trust, but the rehabilitation of offenders is vital to enable long-term desistance for those who have offended in the past. By changing the disclosure rules, we are supporting those with childhood criminal records and those with old and minor convictions to move on with their lives, to be reintegrated into society and to take up employment and training opportunities. We are committed to increasing the employment rates of people who have offended in the past. The importance of employment in enabling those who have offended in the past to move forward with their lives cannot be overstated. We have an obligation to do what we can to make sure that people with convictions do not offend again, and employment is one of the most effective ways to do that.
These amendments to the exceptions order and the Police Act protect the privacy of an individual and represent a proportionate means of retaining the vital protections of relevant disclosure to employers, when they need them to make recruitment decisions for sensitive roles. I seek to reassure those who may be concerned that ceasing automatic disclosure of some criminal records presents a safeguarding risk. Other disclosure rules ensure that recent, sexual or serious violent convictions, adult cautions and any convictions that resulted in a custodial sentence will continue to be automatically disclosed on standard and enhanced DBS certificates. Furthermore, the statutory regime enables chief police officers to disclose any information they consider to be relevant to the purpose of a certificate and which, in the chief officer’s opinion, ought to be included in the certificate.
We intend to update the associated Home Office statutory guidance for the police alongside this legislative change to make it clear that information about convictions and cautions not automatically disclosed under the rules can, in principle, be included in a certificate in the same way as other police information reasonably believed to be relevant to the purpose for which the certificate is being sought.
In conclusion, we welcome the Supreme Court’s recognition of the important public interest in disclosing criminal records to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm, and we also acknowledge their judgment that two aspects of the regime are disproportionate. We are confident that these changes will still enable employers to make informed recruitment decisions to support safeguarding, but in a way that enables those who committed minor offences and who offended long ago to move away from their past. This will have particular benefit to those with childhood cautions. I invite noble Lords to support these two orders and I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we welcome these orders and the comprehensive way in which the noble and learned Lord has opened this debate. As we have heard, the order under the Police Act changes the arrangements for disclosure by the Disclosure and Barring Service.
The first change removes youth cautions and reprimands and warnings given to persons under 18 from the disclosure requirement. This is obviously sensible and necessary. The whole point of youth cautions has been to enable the police to deal with children and young people informally, without criminal prosecution. The disclosure requirement is therefore an anomaly. Secondly, the removal of the multiple conviction rule eliminates another anomaly. The effect of a second conviction, of whatever nature, has hitherto been to open up disclosure of all previous convictions, again of whatever nature.
The order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act achieves the same two effects in respect of disclosure by applicants for employment to potential employers—again, obviously sensible and desirable. But these two orders are laid not because the Government suddenly realised that the existing provisions were unwise, unfair and unlawful but because of the Supreme Court’s decision last year in the four cases of P and others, as the noble and learned Lord acknowledged. The unfairness of the existing law is illustrated by the facts of those cases, which I hope I will be forgiven for summarising.
In 1996 Mrs G was fined £35 in all for seat-belt offences, then in 1998 a further £80 for similar offences. She has no other convictions. In 2014, 16 years later, now a qualified care worker, she applied for a job at a day centre for adults with learning disabilities, but her disclosure of her historical convictions was incomplete and her job offer was withdrawn after the enhanced criminal record certificate disclosed all her previous convictions.
In 1999 P was cautioned for stealing a sandwich from a shop and conditionally discharged for stealing a book worth 99p and failing to surrender to bail. She was then 28, homeless and suffering from mental illness. She has committed no further offences. Now a qualified teaching assistant, she has not been able to find employment, she believes as a result of her disclosure obligations.
In 1982 W, aged 16, received a conditional discharge for an assault during a fight with other boys. In 2013, aged 47, he began a course in teaching English to adults. He believed his chances of obtaining teaching employment would be prejudiced by the need to obtain a criminal record certificate.
Finally, in 2006 G, aged 13, was arrested for two trivial offences of sexual assault on two younger boys. The police accepted that the offences were consensual and in the form of dares. He was reprimanded by police and has not offended since. In 2011 he was required to apply for an enhanced criminal record check because his work as a library assistant involved contact with children. As a result, he withdrew the application and lost his job.
The Supreme Court judges decided unanimously, though their reasons differed slightly, that the existing provisions infringed the applicants’ Article 8 rights to privacy. This case has powerful support for two pillars of our liberty. The first is the European Convention on Human Rights, which in recent years has been frequently under attack. The second is the right of citizens to apply for judicial review in respect of claims that their human rights have been breached. That right too remains under attack.
The Government and their supporters are often heard to complain of judicial activism and lawyers whom some would describe as activist lawyers overruling the supremacy of Parliament, but we should not forget that the Police Act and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the orders made under them were passed by our sovereign Parliament. Nor should we forget that these judicial review cases were pursued by the Government, opposing the applicants all the way through the courts to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding a decisive finding at a lower level that the existing provisions were incompatible with the applicants’ Article 8 rights.
In the context of discussions on legal aid, we should also note that P did not have a solicitor and was represented by Liberty; nor did G, who was represented by a non-profit organisation called Just for Kids Law.
This debate reminds us of the need for judicial and extraterritorial checks on parliamentary sovereignty and the importance of constant vigilance.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks introducing these orders. I accept that they are for England and Wales; however, I will make a few remarks.
I am absolutely certain that the draft orders before us are necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, which held that the disclosure of multiple offences and the disclosure of youth cautions, warnings and reprimands were incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These orders therefore bring legislation into line with that ruling.
These draft orders are understandably sensitive, and it is vital that we continue to strike the right balance between rehabilitation of offenders and protecting the community. Coming from Northern Ireland, where many young people have had their lives ruined by involvement in paramilitary organisations, I recognise the need to ensure that young people who have been engaged in minor criminality have the opportunity to reintegrate into society after serving their punishment and demonstrating commitment to right the wrongs of their crimes.
I am also absolutely certain that lives can be turned around and that every opportunity should be taken to assist those who in the past were involved in criminality yet now want to lead lives that are meaningful and profitable to society. In my years of public life, I have witnessed that failure does not always have to be final.
However, I firmly believe that automatic disclosures must continue without exception for convictions that are relevant to prevent unsuitable persons working with vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly and those with disabilities. This includes violent and sexual offences. I believe maximum caution should be applied when protecting the interests of the most vulnerable.
There are also questions to be posed about the practical impact of these changes between the structures used to do background checks on job applications in different parts of the United Kingdom. Employers should be regularly kept abreast of what these changes mean for them and how they affect their rights as recruiters. It is vital that no one falls between the cracks. It would be helpful to have a statutory review period to assess the ongoing impact of these changes on employers, offenders and those who have suffered from criminal activity.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to speak in this short debate. I welcome these orders, which would amend the filtering rules that govern what is automatically disclosed through the standard and enhanced criminal record certificates issued by the DBS. Removing the automatic disclosure of youth cautions, reprimands and warnings, as well as the multiple conviction rule, will help to strike the right balance between rehabilitating offenders and protecting the public.
I have been a keen advocate of reform around childhood criminal records, and here today we see real progress towards greater support for improving outcomes of those with minor criminal records and their future in society. Making errors of judgment in childhood should not prevent those who are trying to turn their lives around leading a fulfilling and rewarding life and contributing positively to their community.
My time as a youth magistrate and a member of the Youth Justice Board gave me a real insight into the debilitating effects of minor criminal records that hung over young people who were trying to put the past behind them and get on with their lives. Too often, the current disclosure system acts as a barrier to employment, as well as to other things, such as housing, education and insurance, which in turn minimises the chances of rehabilitation.
We know that employers use DBS certificates as part of their recruitment process to help them consider a person’s suitability for certain roles, particularly those requiring a high degree of public trust. We also know that securing a good job can notably increase the possibility of desistance. It is therefore very welcome that these changes will particularly benefit those with childhood cautions and those with minor offences who have moved on from their past. Too often, you hear from young people who seem resigned to the fact that because they have a criminal record, they have zero chance of securing a job and getting on with their lives.
It is right, however, that convictions and adult cautions for offences specified on a list of serious offences, and which received a custodial sentence, are recent or unspent, will continue to be disclosed. Additionally, enhanced criminal record certificates may also include any information that a chief officer of police reasonably believes to be relevant and, in their opinion, ought to be included.
I am grateful to the safeguarding Minister in the other place, Victoria Atkins, for bringing this new legislation forward. I agree with her that making these changes will help to ensure that vulnerable people are protected from dangerous offenders, while at the same time ensuring that those who have turned their lives around or live with the stigma of past convictions from their childhood are not held back. These changes build on the Government’s commitment to increase employment for ex-offenders and are a very welcome step. I believe that a wider review of criminal records would highlight further improvements that could be made to deliver better outcomes, but that is not for now.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who has drawn upon her extensive experience in the juvenile courts to speak up for those who have turned their lives around. I fully support these two orders, but I cannot give the Government any credit for bringing them forward. My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has pointed out that the Government are simply responding to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P, made nearly two years ago. It was a case that was fully contested by the Home Office all the way up to the Supreme Court. What it revealed was the rigidity of decision-making, the lack of discretion and the straitjacket within which these decisions were made.
My noble friend was also right to emphasise the importance of the human rights convention and judicial review as a remedy. This is the way in which these matters can be brought before the court. I remember the old days of writs of the Crown—certiorari, mandamus and so on. Judicial review has developed well from that and must be protected from all the voices that are now speaking against it.
I will not rehearse the facts of the particular case and the four people concerned in it because that has already been done. The outstanding matter for me is the triviality of the offences involved: the stealing of a sandwich, a fight between boys and so on. It is quite striking that the convictions were so trivial but that many years later the effects of the legislation could have such an overwhelming impact on the people concerned. The Supreme Court held that the multiple conviction rule was disproportionate and a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The same finding was made in respect of the disclosure of police reprimands given to young children. I can remember from my own youth being told off by a policeman for the way I was riding a bicycle—if I had thought that it was going to be brought up against me at some future time, I would have been very much more concerned than I was.
It should be appreciated that in the past five years alone, over 1 million youth criminal records have been disclosed on standard or enhanced criminal record checks relating to offences from more than 30 years ago—more than a million. While it is right that certain offences should be disclosed to employers, a fair system should not blight the lives of people who are trying to get on in life by disclosing warnings and reprimands or trivial convictions.
While I welcome these orders, consideration should be given to creating a distinct system for the disclosure of criminal records acquired in childhood. It is wrong that they should be carried forward indiscriminately into adulthood. I have two questions. I want to ask the Minister what filtering system exists that allows the consideration of applications for disclosure on a case-by-case basis. There have been calls from the Law Commission, the Justice Select Committee and others for a full review of the wider regime in order to determine whether the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is fit for purpose. Will the Minister take steps to set up such a review and to deal with the disquiet that so many of us feel?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, as director of the Sikh chaplaincy service for prisons, I welcome this order. It is fair and will help offenders to move to a crime-free life. The criminal records disclosure regime rightly provides information through DBS certificates to employers about an individual’s criminal record to help them consider a person’s suitability for certain roles, principally those working closely with children and vulnerable adults, or roles requiring a high degree of public trust. However, it is important that irrelevant criminal records should not be used to limit an individual’s life chances in other work.
The order follows on from an eminently sensible Supreme Court ruling that the multiple conviction rule and the disclosure of reprimands and warnings administered to young offenders can be disproportionate and incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While protecting the safety of the vulnerable, we should do all we can to protect an individual’s employment chances and minimise reoffending—a prime aim of the Sikh Prison Chaplaincy Service and other chaplaincy services working in prisons.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister has set out, these statutory instruments are the result of a judicial review heard ultimately in the Supreme Court on 30 January 2019, where it was ruled that the existing rules for criminal record disclosure are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Claiming victory in the face of defeat, the Government said:
“By making these adjustments we will ensure that vulnerable people are protected from dangerous offenders, while those who’ve turned their lives around or live with the stigma of convictions from their youth are not held back.”
In fact, as my noble friends Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Thomas of Gresford have said, the Government fought this case all the way to the Supreme Court. These changes, which the Government now herald as necessary, reinforce how important the Human Rights Act, judicial review and the independent judiciary are in upholding UK citizens’ rights—all three of which the Government have threatened to undermine.
Of even more concern is that it has taken a judicial review, fought at every stage, to implement changes similar to those first suggested by the Home Office in 2002 and again six years ago by the Independent Parliamentarians’ Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was a member.
We all make mistakes, particularly when we are young. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, said, it is essential that minor criminal matters do not ruin young people’s chances to get on in life. We support these orders, but we will oppose any attempt to restrict judicial review or to tie the hands of the judiciary.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of these two amendments to existing pieces of legislation. The Minister fully set out the reasoning behind the amendments and their effects. Two Acts are being amended by the orders. The first is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which will be amended in two respects: by removing the multiple convictions rule in certain circumstances and also by removing the requirement, in certain circumstances, that the sections order apply to any spent youth cautions. The second is the Police Act 1997, to which the second order makes various amendments, which the Minister fully explained.
I have a few questions for the Minister which arise out of his introduction. I was pleased to see that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development welcomed the changes, particularly on youth convictions, but it warned that, too often, employers routinely carry out DBS checks, even when they are unnecessary for the job that is to be undertaken. Does the Minister share this concern? Also, with unemployment rising and the difficult situation we are currently facing, what else are the Government doing to help offenders? They find it very difficult to get work.
When the Minister was explaining this, he referred to cautions but he did not explicitly refer to conditional cautions. Can I assume that all the provisions he has referred to apply to both youth cautions and youth conditional cautions? He made it clear the provisions apply to both the regular certificates and the enhanced certificates, but when judges or magistrates are sitting in court and looking at the police national computer, will that have a full list of cautions, conditional cautions, warnings and all the other out of court settlements? Will that still be recorded in the PNC, which is seen by magistrates and judges when they are sentencing?
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted that I was a member of the independent parliamentarians’ inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but more significantly Robert Buckland was on that commission, and as far as I remember, he agreed with everything that commission said, and that commission went far further than today’s amendments. Therefore, I look forward to the Lord Chancellor’s continued support for the work of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
The noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, talked about a wider review of how criminal records and orders are dealt with. I was particularly pleased to hear the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, to today’s debate. I sat as a youth magistrate with the noble Baroness for many years, and I know she talks with huge experience from her work as a youth magistrate and on the Youth Justice Board, and I agree with the sentiments she expressed.
I will close with a personal observation. Last night, my son, who is a part-time cricket coach, was filling in the form for his DBS check. I have to say that I find it odd that, when filling in that form, the onus was on him to diclose any convictions or cautions, rather than on the system to have the data available. There was no problem in his case, but it seems to me that is a strange system. Nevertheless, I support these amendments and am happy to do so.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I will touch briefly on a few points.
First, regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, he is quite right to assume these matters will refer to both conditional cautions and cautions. I understand his point about having to address unemployment amongst those leaving imprisonment, and we are concerned to develop through-the-gate services.
More generally, we are not proposing a wider review at the time, but I believe that this legislation addresses the Supreme Court ruling in full. We are confident that the regime will help employers make informed recruitment decisions, particularly for roles involving children and vulnerable adults.
Touching on another point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, we feel it is for employers to make a subjective judgment as to the circumstances in which they feel they should make a DBS check. Clearly, we want to enable people affected by this legislation to move away from their past, particularly those who have been subject to childhood cautions. It is in these circumstances that I commend these draft instruments to the House.
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 July be approved.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid proceedings of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while others are participating virtually, but all Members are treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, when the transition period ends, direct EU legislation and EU-derived domestic legislation that forms part of the legal framework governing our energy markets will be incorporated into domestic law by the withdrawal Act, a subject with which the House is very familiar. My department is working to ensure that the UK’s energy legislation continues to function smoothly and supports a well-functioning, competitive and resilient energy system for consumers after the end of the transition period. This draft instrument is part of the wider legislative programme preparing for the eventuality that the UK does not reach a further agreement with the EU by the end of the transition period, or if any reached agreement does not cover these relevant policy areas.
Prior to the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 January, my department laid several statutory instruments in preparation for the eventuality that the UK left the EU without a withdrawal agreement. Of course, since these SIs were made, the UK has left the EU under the terms of the withdrawal agreement and, since then, new EU legislation has come into effect. This includes Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity, which I will refer to as the electricity regulation (recast), as well as Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019, establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, which I will refer to as the agency regulation (recast).
The Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations make amendments, including some revocations, to the following new pieces of EU legislation: the electricity regulation (recast) and three of the EU electricity network codes. These amendments are required to fix deficiencies that would arise when this legislation becomes retained EU law at the end of the transition period under the terms of the withdrawal Act. It also revokes the agency regulation (recast), which will, of course, no longer be applicable after the end of the transition period.
The electricity regulation (recast) and the ACER regulation (recast) form part of a programme of legislation known as the clean energy package, created to further integrate markets across the EU. All of the clean energy package will have entered into force by the end of the transition period. The electricity regulation (recast) sets out the high-level principles and structures for the operation of EU electricity markets and defines relationships between EU bodies with a role in this area. The agency regulation (recast) sets out the role of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators—ACER—to co-ordinate energy regulator implementation of the clean energy package and to resolve disputes between member state regulators.
The predecessor to the clean energy package was the third energy package, under which the EU electricity network codes were adopted. The codes introduce common technical rules to promote harmonised operation of energy markets across the EU, and this SI amends three of these codes: first, the High Voltage Direct Current Connections—HVDC—Code; secondly, the Demand Connection Code, or DCC; and thirdly, the Requirement for Generators, or RfG, Code.
This draft instrument makes corrections to deficiencies in the electricity regulation (recast) and three of the EU electricity network codes. The amendments are needed to make the legislation workable in a domestic context after the end of the transition period. These deficiencies include references to EU entity functions, such as the role of member states, and to EU institutions, such as the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity. The deficiencies are removed or replaced with references to entities in Great Britain or other appropriate terms. For example, the term “Member State” is replaced with references to “the Secretary of State”. The draft instrument also revokes the agency regulation (recast) in full on the grounds that it includes obligations that would be inappropriate after the end of the transition period, with of course GB regulators no longer being members of ACER.
This draft instrument aims to maintain existing rules domestically while amending or removing provisions that will no longer function after the end of the transition period. As a result, it will help to maintain the operability and integrity of Great Britain’s energy legislation and maximise business continuity for market participants.
In conclusion, the regulations are an appropriate use of the powers of the withdrawal Act. They will maximise continuity in our energy regulation and business continuity for Great Britain’s market operators. They will also ensure that there is no uncertainty about the role and functions of Great Britain and EU bodies in the market or about the requirements on market participants as we leave the EU. With that, I commend the regulations to the House.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of this statutory instrument. I am venturing into new subject territory and will take this opportunity to try to understand a little more about what is happening in this important sector.
This instrument follows the normal format of “Brexifying” that we have seen many times in various sectors, whereby although the legislation will continue to apply—in this instance, through the technical network codes—going forward the UK will have its own unilateral regulators making decisions and will be cut off from the EU bodies. That is the theory, although I am not sure how it will work in practice.
What will happen in the future if the EU makes changes? Will the EU-located interconnectors automatically follow the changes, so that any changes that the EU makes will effectively be imposed on the UK companies via licensing? Will the licences to UK industry have expiry terms that will automatically bring that about?
Somewhat interestingly, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the most significant amendments are updating definitions to work in a non-EU context—for example, replacing euros with sterling in the definition of “small enterprise”. I am sure that noble Lords can all agree that that is not earth-shaking as a most significant amendment. But then the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to refer to
“revoking articles relating to the cross-European coordination body … and removing obligations in the Connection Codes for GB bodies to provide information to EU institutions or to take account of their recommendations.”
That latter part leaves me wondering again. We might not provide information or have to follow recommendations, but will not changes creep into interconnection licences over time?
For example, we have withdrawn from the EU bodies that establish the capacity allocation codes, but as we have interconnectors with various EU member states—Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium—will not EU changes to capacity codes be used for dealing with the UK, or rather, in this context, merely GB? What is the effect of data not being given to the EU bodies about the UK when changes are made? Will we be left following rules made absent any information about the UK side of things? Do we care about that or is it inconsequential, or is it up to commercial organisations to work it out?
Returning to the present rather than future changes, on the BEIS website is a very helpful list of all the things that companies need to do. As guidance for stakeholders, it is meant for businesses, but these matters will greatly affect the public if they go wrong, and we are only a few months away from the end of the implementation period.
Therefore, can the Minister advise us of the level of fulfilment of these requirements by industry? Is a smooth transition already ensured, and what are the risks if things are not completed? It is not much comfort being informed that deficiencies in our law have been fixed; I expect that the public will be a lot more concerned about deficiencies in gas and electricity provision not being fixed. For example, how are the arrangements progressing for how operators engage with relevant EU operators to ensure that their transmission system operator certifications remain valid? How are the registrations under REMIT progressing? How are the parties importing or exporting gas to or from the UK proceeding with ensuring that they understand the customs procedures that are in place in both jurisdictions? And how are disputes to be resolved, as the rules on those have also been removed?
I realise that I have asked a lot of questions, but I have done so to make the point that the Explanatory Memorandums explain nothing in terms of comprehension of the practical consequences that the public, and indeed noble Lords, might wish to know. After all, the purpose of EMs is to make legislation, including its effects, clear for the public. I hope that my questions give the Minister an opportunity to provide more information on both commercial progress and the legislative consequences.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate him on introducing what appear to be largely technical regulations. I have a couple of questions.
My understanding is that the regulations specifically do not apply to Northern Ireland and that it has been excluded. I wondered what the reasoning was for that. As we know, Northern Ireland is back in the news again because of the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol, but, given that an all-Ireland energy market will be in place anyway, what are the implications of Northern Ireland being specifically excluded from these regulations? I understand that the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that this might currently be useful for the Northern Ireland Executive but that they might seek to refer to the statutory instrument and apply it in their domestic legislation in the future. To me, that is particularly unfortunate. It would be helpful to know what the status of Northern Ireland, whose grid system and internal energy market are wholly integrated with those of the Republic of Ireland, will be. In my view, it would be better if all in the UK worked on the same basis from day one. Therefore, my first question is this: what are the implications for the UK’s internal market of Northern Ireland remaining in the all-Ireland energy market?
Secondly, under this statutory instrument, what is the legal position from 1 January for new interconnectors? For example, I understand that there is to be an interconnector bringing energy—presumably electricity and gas—from Denmark. What legal regime will apply? Will that be covered by the regulations before us today or will it be considered at a later date?
The rest of these regulations seem straightforward. I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on them and would be grateful to receive a reply to my questions.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I plan to be brief at this point on a Thursday night because electricity markets are often seen as dry and boring. Considering the recent moves on Northern Ireland, it seems the Government are moving headlong to a no deal. This was counted as an outside possibility until now. If it does happen—and the legislation is preparing for it—the tariffs on electricity will go back to World Trade Organization, I believe. Can the Minister say which body will be responsible for the management of those tariffs and how they will be charged? With the French and Dutch interconnectors, we are looking at between 6% and 10% of our base load capacity coming from France especially, with the nuclear power stations there. Is it going to be National Grid, will it be Elexon? It does not seem clear in the Government’s memorandum, which gives the impression it is business as usual. Can the Minister say what calculations have taken place? Who calculates the tariff? Can the Minister give an indication of what the tariff will be? Obviously, he will have that information to hand. I see the Minister laughs, but I do not see why considering we are talking about only a few months ago and it is integral to the price of electricity in the country. Consumers will have to bear the burden of this tariff. Why has that not been worked out and understood? Surely, BEIS has undertaken that work.
Second, looking at the paperwork and working with some of the organisations, such as Elexon, it appears that most of the forward planning on electricity marketplaces is based on business as usual and that we will just slot in quite happily with the European marketplace. Under a tariff system, I am not sure that is feasible because there will be a price differential between member states and the UK. Therefore, we will not be able to take part in these organisations. Will the Minister give an indication of the future in a no deal situation for such initiatives as project air, which is looking at an integrated European marketplace?
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the customary clarity with which the Minister introduced the regulations and the contributions of all speakers to the debate so far. It is a rare pleasure to spend two consecutive Thursdays discussing electricity and gas regulations in the company of the Minster, the opposition spokesperson and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Great though that pleasure is, I am told you can get too much of a good thing, so I hope we will not put that adage to the test. There is a serious point because last week the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised the issue of the interrelationship between the regulations we were discussing then and the regulations we are discussing now. They are different in many respects, but all relate to EU exit. I wonder whether it is worth taking some of these together in future. It might save the Minister time and allow us to consider the cumulative impact of these exit regulations. My noble friend Lady Bowles raised important questions relating to the impact that changes the EU makes in future may have on our supply companies, particularly in respect of the interconnectors. My noble friend Lord Redesdale made a critical point about if we find ourselves in a no-deal situation, which the Government seem to be rushing headlong into. It is critical that the Minister is able to answer us on the impact of tariffs and the impact on consumers. The Explanatory Memorandum states that these regulations are necessary because the uncertainty that would be caused without them could result in an increase in wholesale prices. Given the volume of electricity through the interconnectors, it would be good to know what the position would be if we are forced onto WTO tariffs. I hope the Minister will address those issues.
I find it somewhat depressing to read the Explanatory Memorandum’s description of what the relevant EU laws did before exit because it summarises them in terms of liberalising energy markets, encouraging co-operation and establishing EU level frameworks. We will lose all that whether we exit in an orderly way after the implementation period or in the disorderly and potentially illegal way which the Government seem set on. Whatever happens, we will also be losing the opportunity for the UK to play a leadership role in shaping energy markets across Europe, particularly to serve our climate goals, and that is a very sad eventuality.
I want to take this opportunity to raise one issue relating to grid connections. I accept that this is not directly related to the regulations, so I will understand if the Minister cannot answer it, but I have had concerns raised with me about the difficulty of getting grid connections for renewable projects in rural areas, particularly agricultural land using solar and solar from rural schools. Can the Minister tell us something about this?
Finally, I asked the Minister last week whether it is the case, as Michel Barnier said in his speech to the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin, that in the area of energy, the UK is asking to facilitate electricity trade without committing its producers to equivalent carbon pricing and state aid controls. In what I can only imagine was an oversight, he failed to answer that question, so can he do so now?
Lord Grantchester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations before the House today and appreciate the amendments needed to the clean energy package in the changed circumstances if no agreement is reached with the EU.
On the face of it, the regulations appear straightforward and essentially technical, correcting deficiencies that would occur should there be no appropriate terms covering this matter between the UK and the EU. However, this is not entirely the situation, as the regulations apply to Great Britain only and not to the United Kingdom. This brings up the situation regarding Northern Ireland. All noble Lords who have spoken have been mystified about the effect on the internal market and the integrated energy market with the EU through interconnectors in general, with implications for Northern Ireland specifically.
I will not bring up the Northern Ireland protocol, which is already subject to continuous controversy, but merely the implications for this statutory instrument. Scotland has its own Parliament and Wales its Assembly. Northern Ireland now also has an operating Executive. Does the exclusion of Northern Ireland from these regulations signify some disagreement about them? Before the Minister replies, I appreciate that Northern Ireland has an integrated energy market with the Republic and is part of the island of Ireland’s energy market. How far are these network code formulations being revoked by these regulations imperative to the grid system and the smooth operation of the internal Great Britain market through interconnectors to the island? As the Minister knows, there are two interconnectors for Britain, one to the north and one between Wales and the Republic. Would operability be maintained with Great Britain should these codes not be revoked?
Will the Northern Ireland Government respond in some way with their own order before the end of the implementation period? I would have thought, from the island-of-Ireland perspective, that the harmonisation of its internal systems from day one would be essential, and that it would wish to implement merely the technical corrections of the regulations, should the future relationship between the EU and the UK not be concluded satisfactorily on the matter. I would be grateful if the Minister set the House at ease that the connection codes are to the relevant extent interoperable, since paragraph 2.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Codes introduce common technical rules aimed at further integrating energy markets across the EU”.
I am presuming that the revocation of obligations on Great Britain institutions and businesses to share information with EU institutions on the connection codes will not in any way lead to future problems in the Northern Ireland energy market. However, what tariff is likely to apply in the event of no deal? What will its effect be on consumer pricing?
It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the situation and further explain how the island of Ireland, the larger part of which will remain in the EU, will operate in conjunction with the GB internal energy market in the event that negotiations between the UK and the EU are unsuccessful. What is being planned now that this Government propose unilaterally to disregard elements of the withdrawal Act? Quite naturally, there is now heightened anxiety over the situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the doughty band of noble Lords who have turned up for yet another of these technical regulations for their valuable contributions. I totally take on board the valid point of the noble Lord, Lord Oates: it would have made more sense to combine our Thursday afternoons into one extended Thursday afternoon and debate some of these regulations together. I am not sure why that did not happen—I think there was some sort of miscommunication between my department and the Whips’ Office—but he is right on this one. This is the last time I will ever agree with a point made by the Liberal Democrats; no such thing will ever happen again.
The Government have of course committed to achieving a smooth end to the transition period for our energy system. As such, a programme of legislation is required to ensure that retained EU law is workable and free of deficiencies by the end of the transition period, and this draft instrument falls within that category of legislation. A failure to address in full deficiencies in the retained EU legislation would create uncertainty and inefficiency in the operation of Great Britain’s market regulation, the role and function of domestic and EU bodies in the markets and the requirements on market participants. Such uncertainty could result in an increase in wholesale prices, which no one wants to see.
I must stress that this draft instrument, and the UK’s departure from the EU as a whole, does not and will not alter the fact that our energy system is resilient, robust and secure. That resilience is built on our diversity of supply. The UK has one of the most secure energy systems in the world, and the industry has well-practised contingency plans to keep energy flowing and to ensure that our energy supplies are safe. In Great Britain the Government have of course been working closely with the electricity system operator, National Grid ESO, and the regulatory body, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, to ensure that measures are in place to deliver continuity of supply and confidence in the regulatory framework in all scenarios. To answer one of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, Ofgem is responsible for regulations in this area, as the independent regulator, and it of course controls network operators and pricing in this space.
The Government are therefore confident that the UK’s electricity system will be able to respond to any changes safely, securely and efficiently, whether these changes are a result of leaving the EU or other challenges facing the UK today, such as the coronavirus pandemic. Our energy system will of course still be physically linked to the EU after the end of the transition period, through interconnectors, which bring significant benefits including lower consumer bills and security of energy supply.
Of course, our future energy relationship with the EU is currently being discussed as part of the ongoing negotiations. As set out in the UK’s approach to the negotiations, we are open to an agreement with the EU in this area that provides for efficient electricity trade. However, should we not have reached any further agreement with the EU by the end of the transition period, or if any agreement does not cover the relevant policy areas, there will continue to be significant value in increased interconnection and trade in electricity and gas with our neighbours. This instrument will help maintain the stable functioning of the domestic energy market by fixing deficiencies across retained EU and domestic legislation, while retaining regulatory functions required to keep the market working effectively.
Let me answer some queries. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his point about grid connections for renewables and give him further information. On the ETS, I have to say that I think Michel Barnier was being somewhat disingenuous with his comments in Dublin, because of course the UK has higher carbon pricing and a more efficient carbon trading market than the EU—if anything, we disadvantage ourselves with our higher carbon costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about pricing. We recognise, of course, the importance to businesses and households of having access to an affordable, secure and sustainable system of energy, and the UK’s exit from the EU will not alter this. Many factors impact energy prices, including fuel prices, exchange rates and generation mix. Great Britain will remain physically linked, as I said earlier, through interconnectors, and we expect any change in electricity prices as a result of changes to interconnector trading arrangements would fall within the normal range of market volatility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about interconnectors. The mechanisms for cross-border trade are not expected to fundamentally change after exit. The EU gas market is one of the world’s most developed and provides security through supply diversity, most of which, of course, is not dependent on the EU. The Government have taken steps to enable electricity and gas trade to continue and to maintain the effectiveness of domestic regulation, providing legal clarity for industry on the future operations of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s energy markets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about UK TSOs maintaining a relationship with European TSOs. The UK Government understand the importance of co-operation between system; discussions around the appropriate fora for this co-operation are ongoing and form part of the negotiations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked what happens when and if the EU changes the codes and regulations. I am afraid I will also give her the reply that this is subject to ongoing negotiations and I cannot comment further on it at the moment. However, we have amended REMIT in our first set of statutory instruments.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, correctly stated that this SI just affects Great Britain; it does not affect Northern Ireland or modify EU energy law as it applies to Northern Ireland. It will therefore have no implications for electricity trading through the single electricity market. The electricity trading technical notice makes it clear that trade on interconnectors will become less efficient if a free trade agreement is not agreed with the EU. With less efficient trade, there is of course the risk of increased costs.
Finally, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, with more information on the future of tariffs.
In conclusion, the draft instrument is required to ensure continuity for our energy system and certainty for market participants and consumers. In doing so, it will support the implementation of an effective legislative framework needed for reliable, affordable and clean energy. I commend these draft regulations to the House.