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
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]
Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy worked closely with the Post Office to ensure that vulnerable customers were able to access benefit payments during lockdown. It remains the case that at least 99% of customers with a bank, building society, credit union or Post Office card account can already access their benefit or pension payments at post office branches or post office ATMs.
Martyn Day [V]
Some 1.23 million people do not have a bank account. Given the DWP’s decision that new benefits or state pensions will no longer be collected using the Post Office card account, with the scheme officially closing in November next year, how will the Minister ensure that an estimated 300,000 vulnerable people can still access their benefits?
Guy Opperman
Any customer with a building society or credit union account will be able to continue to access their benefit or pension payments at a post office, even after the closure of the Post Office card account, including all bank accounts. There is also the ability to open a basic bank account, for which assistance can be given.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
As my hon. Friend knows, alternative payment arrangements are already available to enable housing costs to be paid directly to the landlord. We have listened to feedback, and in May we introduced a new online system for private landlords, so that claimants who struggle with managing their money get the right support promptly. Landlords can now request that a universal credit tenant’s rent is paid directly to them online, rather than by email or post.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. As he will know, it is estimated that 125,000 people are now in rent arrears, with rent not being paid to landlords. Many of those people will be in receipt of either universal credit or housing benefit. What steps can he take to ensure that that rent will be paid to landlords and to prevent spiralling debts that are impossible for people to repay, so that landlords are paid their rent and tenants do not fall into unnecessary rent arrears?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is a passionate and knowledgeable advocate on housing issues, and I always listen carefully to his representations. Alternative payment arrangements such as direct payment to landlords can be requested by the tenant, landlord or work coach, but if there is more that we can do, I am happy to explore it. I regularly meet my counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss these issues, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Direct payments to landlords can help vulnerable tenants, but the issue remains that the design flaws in universal credit leave many tenants at risk. We now know that on average, new claimants of universal credit see a net fall of 40% of their income, one in eight tenants have built up arrears and there is a £440 million gap between what landlords believe they are owed and what tenants have paid. What immediate steps can the Minister take to deal with these structural problems, particularly the waiting period for universal credit, so that when the eviction ban is lifted next week, tenants are not at risk of losing their homes?
Will Quince
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I am afraid that I have to start by disagreeing. It is wrong to attribute a rise in rent arrears solely to universal credit. We know that many tenants are arriving on universal credit with pre-existing rent arrears, which universal credit actually appears to be helping to clear over time. There is no wait for universal credit; people can get an advance immediately. We recognise that this has been a very difficult time for people on low incomes, and that is why we have injected more than £9.3 billion into our welfare system.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I would like to thank all the organisations and charities that supported the consultation, which took longer than we had hoped due to covid-19. It is clear that there are three themes: the need to change the six-month rule, to improve consistency and to raise awareness of the support. We are working at pace across government to bring forward proposals.
Cat Smith
Having supported a number of constituents with motor neurone disease, including a close friend, I have seen some of the challenges when faced with a terminal diagnosis. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government will not just replace the six-month rule with another arbitrary time limit of, say, 12 months? That would not solve the problem and would create barriers for patients and clinicians when it comes to navigating the special rules for terminal illness.
Justin Tomlinson
I pay tribute to the Motor Neurone Disease Association, which has been at the heart of this review. The Secretary of State and I are committed to delivering an improved system that raises awareness of the support, improves consistency and tackles the issue raised around the six-month rule. We are determined that this will be done as quickly as possible.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]
We are aware of a number of cases in which individuals have been underpaid category BL basic state pension. We corrected our records and reimbursed those affected as soon as the underpayments were identified, and we continue to check and remedy further cases that are identified.
Dame Diana Johnson
With up to 130,000 women potentially affected, and with many of those women who have already contacted the DWP having been told, wrongly, that they are not entitled to any additional money, will the Minister say what more he is going to do, in the light of the miscommunication that affected thousands of women represented by the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, to ensure that the women affected are contacted and given the correct information?
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Lady knows, I cannot comment on the live litigation in respect of the WASPI women, although I can say that at the first hearing before the judicial review, notification and communication were found for on behalf of the Government—this Government, the coalition Government and the Labour Government whom she served. In respect of category BL pensions, we are improving the training and the ability of the individuals who are handling the cases.
Paula Barker
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in paying tribute to the WASPI women. Estimates suggest that as many as 130,000 women could have been underpaid their state pensions. Will the Minister confirm the total number who have been affected by the Department’s error and how he intends to ensure that they receive the full amount to which they are entitled?
Guy Opperman
This matter dates from 2008 and a Labour Government who introduced the particular changes. The Department continues to check for further cases, and if any are found, awards will be reviewed and any arrears paid in accordance with the law. We continue to encourage anyone who believes that they are being underpaid the state pension to contact the Department for Work and Pensions.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
This issue is in addition to the UK Government continuing to deny justice for WASPI women at a time when women are disproportionately impacted, socially and economically, by the coronavirus outbreak. The Scottish National party believes that mistakes were made in the changes to the state pension age and has repeatedly called on the UK Government to oversee a full impact assessment that considers the wide-reaching effects of the detriment felt by 1950s-born women. Will the Minister commit to a full impact assessment on both issues?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on live litigation, but he also knows that when the High Court heard the judicial review, it found for the Government on all the issues that he outlines. I point out that sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 give the Scottish National party Government in Holyrood extensive powers to intervene, if they choose to do so.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
Up to 130,000 women who have been denied their pension entitlements through pension underpayments are awaiting justice. An investigation is under way; when will it finally conclude so that those women, many of whom are in their twilight years, get the justice that they deserve? To make a bad situation worse, the Government pledged in their manifesto that they would honour the triple lock; we now hear that they are considering scrapping the triple lock when UK pensioner poverty is the worst in Europe. Will the Secretary of State commit today that her party will not add to its long list of U-turns by scrapping the triple lock?
Guy Opperman
I really think the hon. Gentleman needs to talk to his good lady wife, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), because she was the Secretary of State for the Labour Government who so grievously underpaid state pensions such that the coalition Government and this Government have now transformed basic state pension so that it is more than £1,900 a year higher than it was a decade ago. That is thanks to the actions of the coalition Government and this Conservative Government. The House will be aware that the matters the hon. Gentleman raises in respect of category BL state pension were a result of the changes brought in by the regulations introduced under the Labour Government in 2008.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We recognise that some areas and some sectors of the economy have been more affected than others by the pandemic. The DWP, along with other Government Departments, will continue to work in partnership with mayors, local government, businesses and charities, acknowledging their expertise and links with their local labour markets. This includes working closely and at pace with regional partners during the development phase of the Government’s plan for jobs, which builds on and boosts the existing support offered by our Jobcentre Plus network.
Jane Stevenson
The Government oversaw record employment at the beginning of this year, but, even in that buoyant labour market, there were areas of high unemployment, including in Wolverhampton North East. How will my hon. Friend make sure that those people struggling to find work before the pandemic are not forgotten over the difficult months ahead?
Mims Davies
Our jobcentres have remained open throughout the pandemic, making more than 250,000 calls a week to claimants to help them look for work, and supporting those vulnerable claimants face to face. This Department meanwhile is doubling the number of work coaches in our jobcentres with the first wave of adverts going live last week. I can confirm that recruitment in my hon. Friend’s constituency is going live next week. Work coaches are indeed at the core of our employment offer, and this new increase will provide all claimants with the tailored local support that they need.
Mary Robinson
Manchester Airport employs more than 25,000 people on site and supports a further 45,000 jobs across the north-west, including in Cheadle. Owing to the pandemic, many of those jobs have now been lost or are at risk. Can my hon. Friend confirm that she is working with the Department for Transport, Manchester Airport and local authorities to ensure that the right employment support is in place for airport workers and for those ancillary jobs and workers whose livelihoods depend on the airport?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend has just outlined the work that Greater Manchester jobcentre has already done with key partners to ensure that the reach of our rapid response and redundancy service is extensive, fully working and accommodating all those who she outlined need it. We demonstrated the effectiveness of this service during the demise of Thomas Cook and Flybe—when they collapsed—and the evidence is that the DWP is ready to respond and support all those to find new employment and new career opportunities.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
My Department has supported disabled customers during the covid outbreak by automatically extending existing personal independence payment awards and new flexible access to work support for people to work from home as well as in the workplace and ensuring that disabled people can access new support, including kickstart.
Joy Morrissey
We are heading into an important 12 months for policy development to help disabled people with the Government’s new national disability strategy. Many charities in my constituency in Beaconsfield and across Bucks are very keen to give feedback to this strategy. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that he is meeting stakeholders from a diverse range of backgrounds to ensure the development of a disability policy that is inclusive to everyone?
Justin Tomlinson
For both the Green Paper and the national strategy for disabled people, we will be making sure that disabled people, disabled organisations and stakeholders are very much at the heart of shaping our future policies and service delivery.
We will be organising national, regional and local-led events and events in conjunction with stakeholders. I know that my hon. Friend is a strong advocate of her disability organisations in her constituency, and I encourage her to encourage them to take part in the coming months.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
This Government have spoken a lot about levelling up so that people are equally supported—something that people expect to be delivered. I asked the Minister on 11 May and then on 29 June how the Government were progressing with uplifting legacy benefits. As of February this year, 1.9 million people in Great Britain, many of whom are disabled, are desperate for the Government to sort this. A DWP report states that it would take four to five months to deliver this. We are now four months on. Can the Minister update us on any progress made, specifically on uplifting legacy benefits?
Justin Tomlinson
As a Government, we have provided an extra £9.3 billion-worth of support during the covid crisis, which has been very much welcomed. Specifically, in my area of disability, we will see spending increase this year from £19 billion to £20 billion, which is just shy of a 5% increase, and many disabled people will gain from the additional support provided through universal credit, through the increases in the discretionary housing payment, or through the £500 million given to local authorities as a hardship fund based on individual circumstances.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
But the UK Government’s decision to exclude people claiming legacy benefits from the £20 per week covid uplift to universal credit, many of whom are sick or disabled people and carers, is surely untenable. Nearly 300,000 people in Scotland are missing out on the £20 per week increase as a result. Does the Minister agree that people on legacy benefits deserve the same amount of support as everybody else; and if he does, will he put his money where his mouth is and push the Chancellor to extend the uplift and make it permanent at the upcoming Budget?
Justin Tomlinson
The Government are putting money where their mouth is with the £9.3 billion-worth of support, which is pretty much unprecedented across the world. I would urge all claimants, disabled or not, to talk to their work coaches and review their circumstances to see whether they could be better off moving over to universal credit. But as I set out in the previous answer, there has been a wide range of support, and as a Government we will always target support at those most in need.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Unemployment was little changed over the second quarter, with the latest official Office for National Statistics figures showing unemployment at 1.3 million. This is due to the unprecedented package of support the Chancellor put in place, protecting millions of jobs through the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. We do recognise there are difficult times ahead, but our ambitious £30 billion plan for jobs will support people during the next phase of our recovery, as we build back better and greener.
Stephen Morgan
Unemployment is soaring, uptake in benefits has skyrocketed and marginalised communities are bearing the brunt. Will the Minister urge the Chancellor to extend the job retention scheme to stop this vital safety net being snatched away from those struggling most in Portsmouth?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising issues in Portsmouth, where we are actively trying to help people to get back into work and to have the hope the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are currently working with a pop-up business school in his constituency and, coming up, he may be interested to know that in his local jobcentre there is a new mentoring circle with Maritime UK Solent, which up to 20 young people will get a chance to be part of, seeing the different employer pathways that are available in Portsmouth. He will be interested to know that our work coach recruitment to help people back into work is open, and ends on Wednesday, for people locally to apply.
Matt Western
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) just said, we face a tsunami of unemployment over the coming six to eight months, which I think the Minister would accept. Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said this morning that covid will not end at the end of October, so why should the furlough scheme? Business representatives have said that the furlough scheme in other countries, such as Germany and France, is offering a competitive advantage to those economies that we do not. Will the Minister please speak to the Chancellor and look for an extension of the furlough scheme, particularly on some sort of sectoral deal?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the need for local interventions in his constituency. I must say that his local jobcentre is doing fantastic work, particularly working with young people, and already has new dedicated work coaches to help people as they look to get back into work. We have a new virtual jobs board as well, and we are also working on a local place-based plan to help fill roles in sectors which we already could not fill coming into this, particularly in care homes. There are also roles with the DWP, which start next week, for people to apply for. But I do not think that keeping people in suspended animation and not giving them hope for the future is the way forward.
Justin Madders
There is no doubt that the unemployment situation, bad as it is, would have been so much worse had it not been for the various schemes the Minister has talked about, which is why it is such a catastrophic error for the Government to end the furlough scheme in October. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us what estimate the Department has made of the level of unemployment this coming Christmas?
Mims Davies
That is exactly why we have our plan for jobs—a £30 billion scheme, including £2 billion for the kickstart scheme. I am going to be boring about this, Mr Speaker. There is so much good work going on in the DWP and our JCPs locally to tackle what the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. There was an amazing opportunity just recently in his constituency regarding sector-based work academy programmes, and new virtual jobs fairs for kickstart are coming up in his constituency, as is more recruitment to help people get back into work, which will start near him next week. We are absolutely determined, with our plan for jobs, to see off that tsunami and give people the right skills and opportunities for the future.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The furlough scheme, as we have heard, has been a huge success in helping millions of employees to keep their link to their employer, as well as providing other opportunities for people who are self-employed, with support through grants or through the benefit scheme. Our plan for jobs is a cross-Government initiative that will promote employment opportunities for people of all ages. Our local jobcentres are fully reopened, and we will provide additional support to claimants by doubling the number of work coaches. We are also expanding SWAPs, the sector-based work academy programme, and we have launched our ambitious kickstart scheme, which will provide a vital first step on the jobs ladder for many young people.
Jane Hunt
I am very supportive of the recent action the Government have taken to help young people into work. I have, however, had a number of older constituents contact me, as they have unfortunately lost their jobs because of covid-19. I would therefore be interested to know what steps the Government will take to encourage employers not to overlook the skills and experience that those in their 50s and 60s can bring to the workplace when they are hiring.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the value that experience can bring to the workplace and to a potential new employer. The SWAPs programme allows those looking to pivot into new rules to gain experience in that new area, and in the coming months our job-finding support package will draw on private sector expertise to help those who have recently lost their job, while our job entry targeted support scheme—JETS—will provide extra help to individuals who have been unemployed for three months or more and find themselves at risk of long-term unemployment.
Sally-Ann Hart
The residents of Hastings and Rye are full of potential and talent that needs to be unleashed, but the recent pandemic has put pressure on local jobs. The kickstart scheme is engineered to help people between the ages of 16 and 25 to gain skills and employment. May I ask what my right hon. Friend is doing to help people over the age of 25 to get the skills and training they need?
Dr Coffey
Our £30 billion plan for jobs will see us support people of all ages in building the skills they may need to return to work. One of the key elements is what we are calling SWAPs—the sector-based work academy programme, which is expanding the opportunities in priority areas such as construction, infrastructure and social care, and which can provide training, work experience and a guaranteed job interview to those people ready to start a job. Of course, older workers will be eligible for this and can gain important new skills to pivot into sectors to secure employment.
Selaine Saxby
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response. There is no doubt that we must ensure that the younger generation gets the best chance in life post covid-19, but in North Devon we have a slightly older population. Many of my constituents have also lost their jobs and need additional help and support to retrain. Will she assure the House that those who are a little bit older will not be forgotten?
Dr Coffey
Indeed, and key to identifying those important opportunities and ways to help people over the age of 25 will be our network of empowered work coaches who engage proactively with claimants to help them to identify the options they need to help to build their skills, increase their confidence and return to employment. We are already doubling the number of work coaches, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know that, in North Devon in particular, we have launched a new 14-week IT connect 50-plus programme, an initiative supporting those over the age of 50 to develop digital skills and apply for jobs online.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State said in July that work coaches were the ones who could help to tease out the great skills that people have and what makes a good fit for a new role. She was right, but the pledge she made in July for 4,500 new work coaches to be in post by October has resulted in only 300 being in post to date, as was revealed last week. The crisis has now gone on for six months, and average work coach caseloads are already over 200, so can she tell the House what is going on and why, since April, she has been so slow to act?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady is perhaps far from what is going on. I think she has very recently visited her local jobcentre to discuss this. I want to encourage her by saying that a number of people can be on-boarded into the Department at any one time, given the comprehensive amount of training that is needed to be a work coach. We have also done this in such a way that many existing DWP civil servants can move from being in the service centres in order to get promoted to being a work coach, building on their valuable experience. I can assure her that we are well on track for making sure that we have the right number of work coaches, and indeed replacement decision makers, on the agreed timescale.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Applications only started on 2 September, and already thousands of employers have expressed interest in providing kickstart opportunities for young people. We are working hard to deliver the scheme. We have not yet developed data on the local level, but I am confident that the management information will start to become available so that we can identify right across the country exactly how we are providing support.
Robert Halfon
I strongly welcome the kickstart scheme and the incentives it gives businesses to employ young people in my constituency of Harlow and across the country. Will my right hon. Friend set out what further action the Department is taking to support skills and apprenticeships so that our town can be part of the apprenticeships and skills nation that we so want to be?
Dr Coffey
It is important that a wide range of choice is available to young people, in particular, as they set out in their career, so we will be having kickstart but we will also be having aspects of apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced an additional £2,000 of support for each new apprentice hired from the age of 25. In Harlow specifically, our jobcentre has been running virtual academies and designing SWAP—sector-based work academy programme—schemes to support claimants, working with local employers, including the civil service. Additional funding for the National Careers Service will also mean that over a quarter of a million more people will receive individualised advice on training and careers through their local jobcentre.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
As well as the kickstart scheme, I am delighted to be the Minister bringing forward our new youth offer. Focused on those under 25, we are supporting our young people via a structured 13-week programme, rolling out new youth hubs across local communities, and boosting support for young people with our new DWP youth employability work coaches. This offer includes support to get into apprenticeships, traineeships and sector-based work academy programmes.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the Minister for her answer and the whole DWP team for the support they have given my constituents during this exceptional time. In my constituency of Ynys Môn, I am working with M-SParc, Coleg Menai and the Bangor University team to put together an innovative jobs fair. Along with Alison Cork and Lynn McCann, I am putting together a Make It Your Business event to support women entrepreneurs. How is the Minister supporting innovation and entrepreneurs?
Mims Davies
Supporting the self-employed and inspiring entrepreneurship is a real focus for me as the Employment Minister. I had the pleasure of visiting north Wales not that long ago, back in January, and not too far from my hon. Friend’s beautiful constituency of Ynys Môn, where I met a lady who had started her own innovative charity supporting other young women to succeed and thrive in the way that my hon. Friend has described. I want everyone to have the same opportunities to build their own business. The DWP’s new enterprise allowance scheme is open to claimants to support new and existing businesses to grow and thrive.
Mark Jenkinson
The local DWP team in my Workington constituency, who I met on Friday, have worked incredibly hard throughout this pandemic to ensure that claims are being managed in a timely and efficient manner despite the huge increase in their workload. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to them as they enter the next phase of their plans to tackle youth unemployment and under-employment?
Mims Davies
I join my hon. Friend in his thanks to all our DWP staff who have worked so extremely hard during the pandemic. The DWP is supporting all claimants in focusing on getting back into work. The jobcentre in his constituency is playing a vital role in his community through key outreach, including the Maryport GP surgery. Our work coaches are based in that surgery every Tuesday, taking referrals to deliver work advice to patients and ensuring that everyone gets tailored support.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Those in a local lockdown area who receive a notification that they need to shield will remain eligible for statutory sick pay and new-style employment and support allowance, subject to the wider eligibility criteria.
Gerald Jones
Clearly local lockdowns will present local challenges, and we would expect most employers to be responsible, but will the Government offer support to employees to hold their employers to account where they are not following the guidelines and making their workplaces covid-secure?
Justin Tomlinson
The Government, through the Health and Safety Executive and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, are continuing to issue improved guidance to make it as easy as possible for employers to make reasonable adjustments. Those employees who still have concerns can either talk directly to their employers or raise them with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or the HSE to try to get them resolved. I think most employers want to do the right thing, and we are doing everything we can to give them as much help as possible to get it right and make their workplace covid-safe.
Mr Virendra Sharma [V]
Last week, the TUC made it clear that two fifths of workers will be unable to pay bills if they have to self-isolate for two weeks. Statutory sick pay will have to go up for test and trace to work. Will the Secretary of State increase statutory sick pay to ensure that no one is left behind and keep the country covid-secure?
Justin Tomlinson
We have already made changes to the eligibility for statutory sick pay so that people can qualify from the first day rather than wait until the fourth day. We have extended it to those with symptoms, those who need to self-isolate, or those who need to self-isolate ahead of a hospital procedure. Those on low incomes also have the opportunity, subject to their personal circumstances, to get additional financial support through either universal credit or new-style ESA.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Bonuses are earnings and are treated in the same way as any other earnings in calculating universal credit awards, reflecting HMRC guidance and ensuring fairness across the working population, many of whom do not claim welfare. UC is more generous than the legacy benefits that it replaces. The Government have already made significant investment to increase universal credit’s generosity by cutting the taper rate to 63% in 2017, with an extra £1.7 billion a year put into work allowances by 2023-24.
Margaret Ferrier
My constituent, a key worker in a pharmacy, received a one-off bonus of £120 for her efforts supporting vulnerable people during the coronavirus pandemic. That reward for hard work was eroded when £172.69 was subsequently deducted from her monthly universal credit payments. Does the Minister agree that that is no way to treat people who have stepped up to support us all during these difficult times? Will he consider temporary changes to the work allowances and taper rate to enable key workers to receive these bonuses in full?
Will Quince
I want to thank all the key workers across our country who have done so much during the pandemic. Universal credit makes sure that people are always better off in work. Under the legacy benefits system, claimants would not have kept all their bonuses; in fact, in many cases, the legacy withdrawal rate could be as high as 91% for each additional £1 earned, compared with a maximum of 75% under universal credit.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
My Department is working closely across Government to encourage all employers, big and small, to apply for the kickstart scheme. I urge all colleagues to work with their local jobcentre networks to help us to deliver this.
Tom Hunt
The six-month job placement created by the kickstart scheme will be a vital way in which we can help young people in Ipswich to get on the careers ladder during the current challenges. Will the Minister also place a high priority on the excellent wellbeing and skills programmes run by charities such as Inspire Suffolk in my constituency, which are setting young people up with exactly the kind of support network and knowledge that they need at a vital time in their lives?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the scheme, which is really positive news for his constituency, adding to much similar work across his constituency. Our work coach recruitment is now open in Ipswich and we are looking at a potential youth hub locally, so there is good news in Ipswich. Locally, we are also working with the employers Seven and Service Central, which are working together, hopefully to find some key roles for their young customers in kickstart. We are also working with the East Anglian gymnastics team on a potential new apprenticeship position, so there is plenty of good news in Ipswich.
Greg Smith
I warmly welcome the kickstart scheme, which is a vital step to ensuring the future prosperity of so many young people across our country. In Buckinghamshire, organisations such as Buckinghamshire Business First are helping to co-ordinate firms that cannot offer as many as 30 places. What steps is my hon. Friend taking at national level to ensure that small rural businesses are able fully to participate?
Mims Davies
I am delighted with the interest in the kickstart scheme across the country, including in rural areas, and including smaller companies in that is key. We want applicants from across the country to benefit by bidding for those placements , perhaps via an intermediary or gateway organisation. Small employers, whether rural or not, will have the key support they need from that intermediary, and that will help to create high-quality roles and provide additional support, so that all our young people get the most out of this placement.
Stephen Metcalfe
From the jobs plan I know that my hon. Friend is determined to do what it takes to help young people find access to the work that is so vital to their futures. What other support is available, in addition to the kickstart scheme, that will help young people in Basildon and Thurrock to recover from the effects of the pandemic and secure future opportunities?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and we are rolling out youth hubs across the country so that our young people can access that important wider support. Those hubs will be co-located and co-delivered with our network of external partners, including members of the youth employment group. Our jobcentres are already delivering activities at local level to support our young people, including mentoring circles, virtual job fairs and sector-based work academy programmes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Government introduced a package of welfare measures worth more than £9.3 billion this year, to help those facing the most financial disruption during the pandemic. We introduced a series of measures to support people, including an increase in the universal credit standard allowance for 12 months, worth up to £1,040. Increased local housing allowance rates have put an average of £600 into people’s pockets, and we made statutory sick pay available to employees from day one.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer, but ending the £20 universal credit uplift could see food bank use increase by 10%, according to the Trussell Trust, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that 16 million people could lose £1,000 a year overnight, plunging 700,000 more people into poverty. Will the Government remove that cliff edge and make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent?
Will Quince
The increase was introduced for an initial period of one year as part of the Government’s measures to assist with the financial consequences of covid-19. It was part of a £9.3 billion increase to the welfare system that ensured that it was able to stand up and support the millions of extra people who needed it. Future decisions on benefit rates will be made at the appropriate fiscal event.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Since mid-March we have received more than 3 million claims for universal credit, ensuring that people have a welfare safety net in their time of need. I am proud that more than 90% of new eligible claimants were paid in full and on time, proving that universal credit can stand up to the challenge. The Government’s support for people and businesses is not ending, and we are now focused on delivering our plan for jobs. I hope that the hon. Lady will support that plan, particularly the new £2 billion kickstart scheme that will create hundreds of thousands of new, fully subsidised jobs for young people across our country.
Sarah Champion [V]
I appreciate the Minister’s response, but with coronavirus support schemes being wound down and the Government seemingly unwilling to contemplate their extension, what actual steps is the Minister taking to ensure that towns such as Rotherham are not faced with a generation of mass unemployment, empty shops and closed factories as a result of the pandemic?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right to say that the coronavirus job retention scheme has been a huge success—it has protected up to 10 million jobs—but it is important to point out that support for furloughed employees does not end in October. In the Chancellor’s summer statement, he announced the new job retention bonus, which will pay employers £1,000 for every employee still in post by the end of January. For those who, sadly, are made redundant or lose their jobs, Jobcentre Plus stands ready to assist up and down the country.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I met the Mayor of London and some of his team as part of the M9 Group engagement with key stakeholders and other Government Departments on the importance of local recovery plans and action. We now have 890,000 more people claiming universal credit in London. The Mayor of London needs to work with local DWP teams to drive that number down and help build a strong recovery for our economy.
Elliot Colburn
My constituency is part of Greater London and I have met many businesses in Carshalton and Wallington that are keen to expand employment opportunities, including Dotty’s Teahouse in Carshalton High Street, which I would love to invite the Minister to. Given London’s critical role as the engine of the UK economy, does the Minister agree that the Mayor needs to step up, show more leadership and do more to encourage employment opportunities, not just in my constituency but across the capital?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point about the critical role in turning London around. Dotty’s Teahouse sounds like a really lovely place to pop down to, to see whether they have any gluten-free cake.
The pandemic has changed the labour market landscape and it is absolutely right that the Mayor of London steps up and delivers on behalf of London, otherwise as we know, someone else is waiting in the wings to do it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It has been less than two weeks since the Government launched the kickstart scheme, which will help thousands of young people on to a vital step on the jobs ladder. Thousands of employers have already expressed an interest and I am pleased that several have already had funding approved. Smaller organisations that do not expect to take on more than 30 kickstarters during the scheme will gain access to funding through an intermediary. I know that several organisations are applying to that gateway, for example Suffolk County Council and Suffolk chamber of commerce. We are having productive discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses, which very much wants to be part of the solution for small businesses and young people.
This is a Great Britain-wide £30 billion plan for jobs. I know that the Scottish Government are undertaking their own initiatives, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to ensure that we put the full efforts of the UK Government into helping people in Scotland get back into work.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that young people in Scotland are not disproportionately affected by the economic fall-out from covid-19, given that we were suffering from a higher rate of unemployment when the pandemic hit?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out that Scotland was already starting to struggle with unemployment rates compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, but I want to assure him that we will not only work with kickstart, but ensure that we have a Scotland-specific job entry: targeted support—JETS—programme so that we can tackle people who perhaps need either support to pivot into different sectors, or intense support which recognises that they may have been unemployed for some time. We will ensure that the people of Scotland get the full support of the UK Government.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a tragic consequence of the pandemic that some families of NHS key workers have lost their loved ones to covid-19 after they contracted the virus while serving on the frontline. It is absolutely right that they receive compensation for that. May I ask the Secretary of State to justify the news that low-paid relatives who receive the compensation payment are to be stripped of their benefits? That is not the case with comparable payments such as the Grenfell and Windrush compensation schemes, so why are NHS families being treated in that way?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will know that when people have a substantial amount of money—and I recognise the route he indicated on how they have received that—it usually takes them over the £16,000 threshold for support through the welfare system. He specifically referred to some other programmes, where it is absolutely acknowledged that there has been a complete failure within Government in that regard. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case regarding the NHS, but I am sure, as the NHS is a separate employer from the Government, it will continue to work with its employees and the relatives of people who have sadly died.
Jonathan Reynolds
I find that answer lacking in reason and compassion. There was news this morning that the country’s largest food bank network has warned that UK destitution rates are set to double by Christmas. We know that the Government believe they deserve praise for the fact that universal credit has not collapsed like the test and trace system, but the real test of a social security system is whether it gives people the support they need. The food bank statistics prove that this is just not happening at the moment. Clearly that will get worse as the furlough scheme ends. We have set out our further suggestions on how to prevent the looming disaster. What are the Government’s plans to prevent it?
Dr Coffey
We have set out the unprecedented steps we took to ensure that vulnerable people would not go hungry as a result of the pandemic, focusing especially on children. While schools were closed to most children, free school meal vouchers were still in operation if schools could not provide a meal. Further support was given through the summer food fund, money was provided to food charities to help get food to people who were struggling, and 4.5 million food boxes were given to vulnerable people who were shielding. Together with the extra £9.3 billion in welfare support that has been given to households across the country, we believe that this is a strong way to have supported people in these difficult times.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
First, no one will get away with giving false information. Those who are found to have been abusing the system are subject to the full extent of our enforcement powers. The Child Maintenance Service will pursue those people where appropriate. Parents were asked to report any changes via the self-service portal to ensure that receiving parents did not lose out in the long run. Cases will be updated and people will be notified of any changes. Where payments have been missed, the service will take action to re-establish compliance and collect any unpaid amounts that have accrued.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The National Audit Office told the Work and Pensions Committee two weeks ago that the “sophisticated” analysis of the Trussell Trust has established an association between universal credit roll-out on the one hand and rising food bank demand on the other. Association is not the same as causation, so what plans do the Government have to commission research, as the National Audit Office recommends, into the impact of universal credit on food bank demand?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. As he knows, I gave evidence to the Committee recently on this very matter. I have worked closely with food bank providers—the Trussell Trust and others—over the course of the pandemic to ensure that our support has got to those who need it quickly. We continue to better understand the reasons for food insecurity. That is why we have put additional questions in the family resources survey. We keep all policies under review, and of course we listen to the findings of reports such as that of the Trussell Trust.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are investing £10 million of European social fund support to get 20,000 disadvantaged people across England who are without access to the internet online. People who receive ESF support will be loaned devices, such as a tablet or a laptop, and be provided with three months’ data allowance. That will enable them to access the increasing range of online services to support their job search and, importantly, their journey towards securing employment.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Mims Davies
First, let us remind ourselves of where we were in January. We entered the pandemic with employment at a record high of 33 million.
It is on my list to visit: we will be up there to see what the local jobcentre is doing. We have an ambitious plan for jobs—£30 billion in the next phase of our recovery—to ensure we build back better, greener and stronger. Extending the furlough scheme will just keep people in suspended animation. I am absolutely determined to use my role to get back to where we were in January.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Mims Davies
I could not be more excited about what we are doing near my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is a key local example of cross-Government and local partnership. We have an innovative and unique scheme, with the DWP, the Department for Transport and the Department for Education. Where people are being made redundant from the aviation industry or its supply chain, they will be able to pivot across to the film industry, bringing their skills to a growing and booming industry. That will be facilitated by our flexible support fund grant and involves key local partners, including Pinewood Studios, ScreenSkills, and the excellent Buckinghamshire local enterprise partnership and the M3 enterprise LEP.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Mims Davies
We have had unprecedented Government intervention since we headed into the coronavirus crisis. Last week, I met G20 Ministers looking to learn from what we have done in the UK and, above all, learn about our next stage, which is our plan for jobs and the forthcoming £2 billion kickstart scheme. This is about moving forward, not holding people back or in suspended animation.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend asks an important question about our work with the business community and across the Government. The DWP has been an integral player in the development of the plan for jobs. Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Education, we have had several roundtables with the business community and others to ensure that people who are looking to enter employment can develop skills and have additional funding, going down the apprenticeship or traineeship route, as well as kickstart. I am also in regular discussions with other Cabinet colleagues on the creation of new opportunities wherever possible.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Department has an ongoing positive relationship with a range of food bank providers. It has regularly engaged with them throughout the coronavirus pandemic and will continue to do so. We quickly introduced welfare changes worth an additional £9.3 billion, and worked closely with other Government Departments on the cross-Government taskforce on food and other essential supplies. Further to my earlier answer, the hon. Lady will have to wait for future fiscal events where benefit rates are set.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Will Quince
My hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the incredible team at Harrogate Jobcentre Plus. As he knows, we have seen a surge of over 3 million claims since mid-March, and I agree that UC has stood up to the challenge, with payment timeliness remaining high at over 90%. We will continue to closely monitor our services across the country and will continue to keep staff numbers under review. As he also knows, we have committed to doubling the number of work coaches.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
As a Government, we absolutely recognise the support that carers provide. We have made a number of changes during covid-19 to maintain that support, including allowing emotional support and allowing for breaks due to covid. By 2024-25, we expect to be spending £3.6 billion supporting carers, which will be more than double that spent when we first came to office.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising kickstart. This is a huge programme for young people, providing 25 hours a week and an opportunity to get their first foot on the employment ladder. We do not want our young people to be left behind because of the impact of the pandemic—we know that the scarring can affect them most. Kickstart will change that, and I ask all employers to get involved and be part of it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Justin Tomlinson
We rightly took a decision to suspend face-to-face assessments following Public Health England’s guidance. We continue to keep this under review, but wherever possible, we are either doing a paper-based review or a telephone assessment, and we are automatically renewing reassessments that are due within three months by six months, and we review that on a regular basis.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will Quince
My right hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for hard-working people. He tempts me to set Treasury policy, which I fear the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take kindly to, but I urge him to make representations to Her Majesty’s Treasury instead.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Mims Davies
I go back to our £30 billion plan for jobs. We have to move forward, absolutely understanding what we learned coming into this pandemic—that we have the highest employment rate going. Going back to square one for some of these people is a real challenge. That is why we have stopped the minimum income floor for people who are self-employed and we are supporting people to get back into work. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but we need to focus on the plan for jobs —a £30 billion scheme, with interventions coming down the line. We need to move forward and give people hope.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Japan Free Trade Agreement
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I am delighted to announce that last Friday we reached agreement in principle on a free trade deal with Japan. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement is a major moment in our national history. It shows that economic powerhouses, such as Japan, want ambitious deals with the United Kingdom, and it shows that the UK can succeed as an independent trading nation. It shows that we can strike deals that go further and faster than the EU—British-shaped deals that suit our economy.
This deal will drive economic growth and help level up our United Kingdom. On tech, it goes far beyond the EU-Japan deal, banning data localisation and providing for the free flow of data and net neutrality, benefiting our leading tech firms. In services, we have secured improved market access for financial services and better business mobility arrangements for professionals and their families. On food and drink, up to 70 of our brilliant British products can now be recognised in Japan, from Welsh lamb to Yorkshire Wensleydale cheese, English sparkling wine and Stornoway black pudding. Under the EU deal, that was limited to just seven. We have also secured tariff reductions on British goods from biscuits to pork, as well as continued access for malt and Stilton cheese.
In manufacturing, lower tariffs on parts and improved regulatory arrangements will benefit major employers such as Nissan and Hitachi in the north-east. The deal strengthens our ties with the world’s third-largest economy and deepens the bond between two like-minded island nations who believe in free and fair trade.
One of our greatest Prime Ministers, Mrs Thatcher, saw the value of co-operating with Japan in areas such as the automotive sector and electronics in the 1980s, which attracted the likes of Nissan and Toyota to our shores and delivered lasting benefits. Now, in 2020, we will unleash a new era of mutually beneficial economic co-operation with our great friend Japan, pushing new frontiers in areas such as tech and services trade. Japan, as one of the world’s major economies, is a vital partner for the UK and one of the most significant nations in the Pacific region. Securing this Japan deal is a key stepping stone towards joining the trans-Pacific partnership, which is one of the world’s largest free trade areas, covering 13% of the global economy and £110 billion-worth of trade. Accession is vital to our future interests. It will put us in a stronger position to reshape global rules alongside like-minded allies. It will hitch us to one of the fastest growing parts of the world. It will strengthen the global consensus for free trade at a time of global uncertainty and creeping protectionism. Japan, alongside this agreement, has given its strong commitment for UK accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and last week I co-chaired a chief negotiators’ meeting of all 11 TPP countries—the first time that a non-member state has been asked to do this—where we discussed the path to UK membership. As negotiations progress, we will bring forward the formal application process to Parliament, and ensure that it is scrutinised openly and transparently.
As I have promised, there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all the other agreements that we strike. Prior to entering negotiations, we issued a scoping assessment and published our objectives. During the negotiations, we have engaged extensively with business and stakeholders, including sharing sensitive tariff and market access information with our new trade advisory groups. We have established a Trade and Agriculture Commission to put our farmers at the heart of trade policy and ensure that their interests are advanced. When it is complete, I will be issuing a copy of the final deal to the International Trade Committee for scrutiny. We will also produce an independently scrutinised impact assessment, covering social, labour, environmental and animal welfare aspects of the agreement so that parliamentarians are able to interrogate the deal and prepare a report that is debated in Parliament. Ultimately, Parliament will decide whether to ratify the deal through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process or to withhold its support.
I am strongly of the view that this is a great deal for Britain. It benefits all parts of our country while protecting our red lines on areas such as the NHS and food standards. The agreement that we lay before Parliament will be the first of many, because there is a huge appetite to do business with global Britain and a huge opportunity for every part of this country to benefit from these agreements. This deal is a sign and a signal that we are back as an independent trading nation, back as a major force in global trade and back as a country that stands up for free enterprise across the world. This is just the start for global Britain.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and congratulate her on reaching this agreement. It is a much-needed relief for all those UK companies that would have seen their trade with Japan revert to World Trade Organisation terms if the agreement had not been reached by the end of the year. It is also a welcome benefit at a time of great economic uncertainty for the UK’s digital and tech sectors, and for other key exporters, which will benefit from greater access, faster tariff reductions or stronger geographical indication protections under this agreement than they enjoyed under the previous EU-Japan agreement. In the absence of a treaty text and a full updated impact assessment, there is much about the UK-Japan agreement that we still do not know and will not know until those documents are published. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State can answer some initial questions today.
First and foremost, will the Secretary of State tell us, in billions of pounds and percentages of growth, what benefits this agreement will produce for UK trade and GDP over and above the forecast benefits of simply rolling over the existing EU-Japan deal? I was glad to hear her refer to consultation with the farming sector. Can she tell us what benefits the sector will derive from this deal if the EU reaches its tariff rate quota limit for agricultural products, and how that will compare with the benefits that the sector was forecast to derive from the EU-Japan deal? Will she also tell us what the impact of Friday’s agreement will be on the UK aerospace sector relative to the impact of the EU-Japan deal?
Let me turn to three specific issues. Given that there has been lots of discussion about Stilton, can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how the treatment of Stilton differs under the deal that she has agreed compared with its existing treatment under the EU-Japan deal? Given the current debate on state aid, can she confirm that the provisions on Government subsidies that she has agreed with Japan are more restrictive than the provisions in the EU-Canada deal, which No. 10 has said is the maximum it is prepared to accept in any UK trade deal with Brussels? On a similar subject, what provisions, if any, are included in the UK-Japan agreement relating to public procurement, and are they also consistent with the Government’s current negotiating position on an EU trade deal?
On the subject of Brexit, will the Secretary of State simply agree with me that, as welcome and necessary as this deal with Japan is, it is nothing like as important in terms of our global trade as reaching a deal to maintain free trade with the European Union? Our trade with Japan is worth 2.2% of our current global trade. That does not come anywhere near the 47% of trade that we have with Europe under the Government’s best-case scenario. The deal they signed on Friday will increase our trade with Japan by a little less than half in 15 years’ time. That is nothing compared with what we will lose in just four months if we do not get the deal with Europe that this Government have promised. That is why Nissan and every other Japanese company operating in Britain have told us that the deal that will determine the future of the investment and the jobs that they bring to our communities is not the one that we signed with Japan, but the one we sign with Europe.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has committed to a further debate on the agreement, given that there are many more questions to ask, but frankly there is no point in having that debate if Parliament does not have the right to vote. Will the Secretary of State guarantee today that once the treaty text and all the impact assessments have been published for proper scrutiny, she will bring the agreement back for a debate and vote, in Government time, just as will be done in the Japanese Parliament? It surely cannot be the case that this House will have less of a right to vote on a self-proclaimed historic deal agreed by the Secretary of State than will be enjoyed by our counterparts in Japan. May I ask her today to guarantee a vote, and to make it a precedent that will apply to all the other historic agreements she mentioned in her statement and that we hope are still to come?
Elizabeth Truss
After the right hon. Lady’s congratulations to me on securing this important deal, it is perhaps a bit churlish of me to point out that she did not vote for the original EU-Japan deal, so none of the original benefits she talked about would have come into existence had we followed the steer given by the Labour party at the time. The deal we have secured goes significantly beyond the EU-Japan deal in areas that are important to the United Kingdom. For example, the data and digital chapter in some cases goes beyond the CPTPP and sets new precedents for a high-quality deal. On business mobility, financial services, geographical indicators and rules of origin, there are advances in all parts of the negotiation that benefit all parts of the UK and all parts of business.
The right hon. Lady asked about the impact assessment. No doubt she has read the scoping study, which shows a £15 billion increase in trade under this deal, but of course we will conduct another impact assessment following the finalisation of the details of the deal, which we will indeed publish. It will also cover the deal’s environmental impact, social impact and impact on agriculture. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) asks when we will publish it. The answer is that we will do so when we have completed the full legal scrub of the documents and signed the agreement.
The right hon. Lady asked me about agriculture. I am pleased to hear that she shares my strong interest in improving exports of Great British products around the world. The vast majority of agricultural products such as beef and pork are not subject to tariff rate quotas, and we have secured the full liberalisation of those products under this agreement, which is a tremendous boost for British farmers. There is a limited number of areas where there are tariff rate quotas, and that represents about £1 million worth of business versus just over £150 million for the remainder of agriculture, but in those areas we have fought hard to ensure that British exporters continue to get the benefit of exports into the Japanese market at lower tariff rates, including but not limited to Stilton. We have also secured an agreement on malt barley, and we are the second largest exporter of malt into Japan, so that is a significant benefit for British farmers. We have also succeeded in getting more liberal rules of origin on many food and drink products, which will mean that more producers are able to export into Japan tariff-free.
As the right hon. Lady knows, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Parliament can refuse to ratify trade deals. Parliament has the power that other Parliaments have. If there is not a majority in this House for this trade deal, which I do not think will be true because it sounds like she has changed her mind since she voted against the Japan deal last time, it will simply not be ratified.
The right hon. Lady asked me all kinds of questions about the details of the agreement. Obviously, as we, first of all, share it with the International Trade Committee and then with Parliament, she will be able to see the details, but I assure her that the subsidies chapter is the standard kind of chapter you get in an FTA. It is vastly different from what the EU is trying to do with us, which is essentially impose the EU state aid regime in Britain. As David Frost has made clear, that is simply not acceptable.
The right hon. Lady tries to compare and contrast the EU and Japan. We can have both deals—we are global Britain. We want to have deals with CPTPP, with the United States, with the EU and with Canada, and I believe that that is absolutely possible. I am afraid to say that the right hon. Lady still seems to want to relitigate the EU referendum. In 2016, the people of Britain decided. It is time for her to get behind it.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on this heroic and historic new trade deal, and on proving the doubters wrong yet again. Under the EU-Japan deal, there were just seven geographical indicators. Under this new agreement, she has managed to potentially secure another 70, including west country lamb and west country beef. Can she outline how the new deal will benefit beef, lamb and dairy farmers in my constituency?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am looking forward to visiting Davidstow, which is one of the major cheese exporters from the United Kingdom, this Friday. The answer is that dairy products, such as cheddar from Davidstow, will go down to a zero tariff over time as a result of the agreement. We are protecting new product names, whether it is Cornish pasties or clotted cream. We will also see reductions in tariffs for fantastic products such as beef, also from Cornwall.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State. I recognise that, although this deal shares many similarities with the EU deal, it goes slightly further in a limited number of areas, not least the geographic indicators. It would be interesting, however, to find out just how many the UK pushed for as part of the EU deal. On the vexed issue of cheese, which is barely mentioned, surprisingly, it would appear from the reading today that all UK manufacturers can do is fulfil unused EU quotas. I welcome what she has said on data, and what has been described as the digital trade chapter is real progress; however, she will want to confirm that, even with that, if all goes according to plan in GDP terms this deal will be worth less than one tenth of 1% of UK GDP—barely denting the losses anticipated from Brexit.
The elephant in the room is the UK’s stated intention to breach international law and to break legally binding treaties. That is important because the Japan deal is primarily significant in paving the way for CPTPP accession. We know the attitude of the United States—that there will be no deal if the UK breaches international law—and the approach of many of our potential CPTPP partners is very similar. Australia, for example, has demonstrated consistent support for a far-reaching system of international law, and has made a valuable contribution towards realising that. It is a country committed to a rules-based international system. This is all about trust, so would it not have been better for winning the big prize of CPTPP accession if the Secretary of State had stood up and announced the withdrawal of the internal market Bill, rather than boasting about very small gains in this Japan deal?
Elizabeth Truss
Only the SNP could say that £15 billion of extra trade is insignificant, but this Japan deal is not just important economically in itself; it is important, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for accession to TPP, a trade area worth £110 billion. That is vital. This is a step forward. One of the key things we have secured is strong agreement from the Japanese to help us accede to TPP.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is also pleased by the extra protection we have secured for Scotch whisky. There have been issues in Japan, and the Japanese Government have agreed to work with us and the industry on the development of enforcement mechanisms for lot codes on wines and spirits, meaning that Scotch whisky will be even better protected in the Japan market.
The hon. Gentleman talked about cheese. The vast majority of the cheese we export is not subject to quotas. Thanks to this deal, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), the tariffs on our cheese will go down to zero over time, which will be of huge benefit to Scottish cheddar producers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving this agreement. Free trade, of course, is the key to prosperity for all our constituencies, and it is particularly important and valuable for mine, with the largest port in the country at Immingham. I particularly welcome the mention of the trans-Pacific agreement. Will she outline how she will continue with that agreement and move forward with agreements with countries such as Australia?
Elizabeth Truss
We are the first potential accession country that has had a meeting with all 11 chief negotiators. We will now go into separate discussions with those countries to prepare our accession plans. I hope to be able to formally apply early next year so that we can make progress and accede to this high-standards agreement, which will give British exporters access to the fast-growing Pacific market.
Mr Speaker
We are now heading up to Scotland to Angus Brendan MacNeil, Chair of the Select Committee.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Tapadh leibh; feasgar math, Mr Speaker. First, the Secretary of State made very welcome mention indeed of Stornoway black pudding. She then went on to say that she is delighted about the deal, described it as a major moment and said that she feels this UK-Japan FTA is ambitious. However, the GDP figures show it is worth a seventieth of the deal with the EU—a seventieth of the cost of Brexit—so is getting a deal with the EU not 70 times more important than this admittedly very welcome UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement? Will the Secretary of State also clarify whether any of this is dependent on EU co-operation or deals, especially on cumulation?
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s welcoming the increased protection for Stornoway black pudding in the Japan market. He will note that a number of other indicators have been given access to that market, which is important. There are also, of course, huge benefits for Scottish lamb and beef farmers in terms of reduction in their tariffs.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the EU, this is not an either/or choice. Global Britain wants to have a good trading relationship with the EU and a good trading relationship with Japan and CPTPP. That is all possible, but what it will take is for the EU to give us a deal in the way that it has given Canada a deal.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
This deal is a great success story. A global—[Inaudible.] I chair the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods. Will my right hon. Friend kindly set out the benefits for—[Inaudible.]
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Once the details of this trade deal are published, the Japanese Parliament will get the opportunity to debate and vote on it. Will the Secretary of State be clear about whether parliamentarians in both Houses of this Parliament will get the same rights as our Japanese colleagues?
Elizabeth Truss
Once we have the fully legally scrubbed deal, that will go to the International Trade Committee on a confidential basis for that Committee to analyse it. We will also undertake independent analysis on the key points that I outlined earlier—the environmental impact, the social impact and the impact on animal welfare standards. That will then be debated by Parliament and, through the CRaG process, if Parliament is not happy, it will be able to not ratify the deal. I do not think that will be the eventuality, however, because I think people will recognise that the deal is of benefit to the UK economy.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
From what I have seen of the deal so far, it is a great deal and the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on securing it. Coming out of Brexit, it will do much. However, I note that the deal now goes to the Japanese Parliament, as has been said, for pre-signing approval, but not by law to this Parliament for pre-signing approval. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge—preferably in the Trade Bill, which is going through the other place—that, post Brexit, the UK needs a modern, relevant, fair and workable scrutiny regime for new FTAs and not just a return to the pre-EU, outdated 1924 Ponsonby rule, which is restricted to ratification?
Elizabeth Truss
I understand that the deal will go to both Parliaments at the same time—it will go to the Japanese Diet at the same time as it goes to the International Trade Committee in this House for its analysis. As I have said, under the CRaG process, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 2010, Parliament can block the deal if it does not like it, and that process is roughly equivalent to those in other Parliaments, including in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I note what the Secretary of State said about impact assessments, but what discussions has she had with the Office for Budget Responsibility about whether it will produce a forecast of the impact of the deal, specifically comparing it with WTO trading conditions and what would have happened if we had just rolled over the EU-Japan deal?
Elizabeth Truss
I am committed to making sure that we have independently audited analysis of the deal that we complete, but the hon. Lady has highlighted a hypothetical situation. We are now in a world where we have left the EU, even though some Opposition Members do not seem to want to acknowledge that. What we have to talk about is the benefits of signing the deal versus not signing it.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate her on this agreement, which is really good news. Can she explain how small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our British economy, will benefit from this excellent deal?
Elizabeth Truss
The deal with Japan has a dedicated SME chapter, which is all about reducing the red tape that SMEs face, making it easier for UK and Japanese SMEs to understand the others’ markets and providing information to make it easier for them to export and gain the benefits of international trade.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of her statement. Yes, we also welcome the trade deal, but I have two serious concerns. First, it seems to simply mirror what we have with the EU, and, apart from symbolic wins on things such as Stilton cheese, the Government have failed to leverage any real, meaningful benefits. Also, given that the deal has stricter state aid regulations than the disputed ones in the EU proposals, do the Government actually have a trade strategy?
Elizabeth Truss
I urge the hon. Lady to look beyond the EU—90% of global growth is coming from beyond the EU. Both Japan and the wider Pacific region, which is a fast-growing area, are vital for Britain’s future economy. Of course we want a deal with the EU, but that should not stop us doing advantageous deals with fast-growing parts of the world and working with allies to put forward the cause of free and fair trade.
Mr Speaker
To help Members, I advise them that I will run this session until 4.37 pm.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on this trade deal. Can she say a little more about how the south-east will benefit from this? It is not just financial services there. She will be aware that the increase in both exports and imports over recent years has been in road transport.
Elizabeth Truss
We have achieved improvements in areas such as transportation services as well as financial services in the trade deal. We have also improved professional and business mobility, making it easier for business people to travel between Japan and the United Kingdom and increasing our economic links. That will be particularly helpful for the south-east of England.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I of course congratulate the Secretary of State on any trade deal, but she has done a deal with Japan, which represents 2% of our trade, in a week when we have probably lost the 15.5% deal we might have had with the United States. On the day when a Japanese company, SoftBank, has sold off one of the jewels in the crown of British technology, is it not shameful that she could not bring herself to mention Arm from Cambridge? Will the people of this country not despair at her not mentioning that?
Elizabeth Truss
That was a typically upbeat question from the hon. Gentleman. It is not true that our deal with the United States is not progressing; on the contrary, we are in the middle of a very positive negotiating round in which we are currently discussing market access terms.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing this deal. I am delighted, as the people of Cornwall will be, that the iconic Cornish pasty and Cornish clotted cream are to be protected, along with many other geographically protected British products. Can she say what further opportunities there will be for Cornish producers to export to Japan as a result of this deal?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right: a number of products in Cornwall—whether the Cornish pasty, west country farmhouse cheddar or clotted cream—will benefit from this deal through not only lower tariffs but increased recognition of their geographic indicators. I will be in Cornwall later this week, and I hope to talk to producers about how we can increase their exports and take advantage of these new opportunities.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I find it absurd that the House is being asked to debate a text that has not been published, because with trade deals, the devil is in the detail. I want to pick up on the point about state aid provisions, because I am curious about this. In today’s Financial Times, it is reported that the UK and Japan
“have agreed to replicate the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year.”
I was involved in that in Brussels, in a previous incarnation, and it goes far beyond what the UK is looking for in the UK-EU trade deal. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response, and she said that it is a “standard” state aid clause, which strikes me as bizarre language, because there are no standard state aid clauses in any trade deals ever anywhere. Has she made the commitment reported in the Financial Times? Will she stand by it, will she resile from it in six months’ time in a limited way or has she dropped the ball?
Elizabeth Truss
I find it extraordinary, when I am appearing in front of the House to update it, for the hon. Gentleman to complain that I have not given the next update. I am here because, every stage that we agree with the Japanese, I want to share it with the House and have that debate. Of course there will be another debate when we have produced the final text, which he will be able to participate in. Many FTAs have subsidy clauses, but no FTA, apart from the one that the EU is demanding with the UK, has one bloc imposing its subsidy regime on another country.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
By now, the whole House will know of my love of the autonomous delivery robots in Milton Keynes. I am assured that they can deliver geographically protected goods such as Stilton and pork pies, but they are also part of the UK’s larger tech industry. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how our tech businesses will be helped by the data and digital parts of the deal?
Elizabeth Truss
The deal will, in essence, underwrite digital and data flows between the UK and Japan, so there will be no requirements such as data localisation and we will uphold the principles of net neutrality and enable the free flow of data. It will mean that brilliant companies, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, will be able to sell their products into Japan without hinderance.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), if the FT article is correct, the Government have, in this deal, signed up to more restrictive conditions on state aid than those being negotiated with the European Union. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the negotiations with the EU are all about deterring it from reaching a deal so that it will walk away, and we can then blame it for no deal and not take the hit that would otherwise be aimed at the Government?
Elizabeth Truss
I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman’s question was—it seemed to be more of an accusation—but, as I have said, the subsidy clauses in the deal are standard FTA clauses. They are nothing like what the EU is demanding of us.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Last year, 277 Welsh businesses exported to Japan. Does the Secretary of State agree that the new tariff reduction in beef represents an exciting opportunity for farmers such as Brian Bown, who is chairman of my local National Farmers Union and is at a cattle auction this afternoon, and Gerald Thomas, who is president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales?
Elizabeth Truss
British beef and lamb were let back into the Japanese market in 2019. In this deal, we have achieved significant tariff reductions on beef and more protection of geographic indicators such as Welsh lamb and, of course, Ynys Môn sea salt from my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this free trade agreement with Japan. Will she outline the benefits that she sees it bringing to the economy of north-east Wales?
Elizabeth Truss
There are huge benefits to the economy of north-east Wales, whether in digital and data, agriculture such as Welsh lamb, or areas such as manufacturing, where we have reduced the cost of bringing in car parts and agreed closer regulatory co-operation between Japan and the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I would have thought it was impossible to put a line through me, but that is by the bye.
First, I thank the Secretary of State for all that she is doing. Her eagerness to get trade deals the world over is infectious and should encourage everyone in the House. It is an indication of the fact that the global market is anxious to get started with the UK as a trading partner.
I note that there are set to be strong tariff reductions for UK pork and beef exports, with low tariffs for food and drink, and more generous quotas for malt than in the EU-Japan deal. Will the Secretary of State confirm how that will translate for malt for my local whisky producer, Echlinville Distillery in Kircubbin, and for Bushmills whiskey as well? How will it translate for the Northern Ireland pork and beef industries, which provide the best pork and beef in the world—we have that in Northern Ireland and in my constituency? Can we expect an increase in the market for exports to Japan?
Elizabeth Truss
We absolutely can expect an increase. As I said, British beef has only just been allowed back into the Japanese market, and we are now going to see significant tariff reductions. Northern Ireland is, of course, a strong exporter of such products, and it will also benefit from the increased protection of geographic indicators, whether for the Armagh Bramley apple or the Lough Neagh eel.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned Nissan; of course, there is an intrinsic link from Nissan to UK steel, which is intrinsically linked into the talks with the United States. Will she guarantee that President Trump’s completely unrealistic and unreasonable section 232 tariffs on UK steel will be removed from the trade negotiations with the United States as a precondition for those negotiations to proceed?
Elizabeth Truss
We are in active negotiations with the United States, and one of the things I have been very clear about is that we need to see those unfair section 232 tariffs on our steel removed.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
We are very excited in Grimsby about this trade deal, because we feel it will create a huge benefit for our family-owned fish processors, particularly those for flat fish, and for our fish smokehouses of Alfred Enderby. How will this help to improve fisheries?
Elizabeth Truss
There are two benefits for fisheries from this deal. First, we are going to see a reduction in tariffs on all kinds of fish, be it mackerel, cod or salmon. And my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that traditional Grimsby smoked fish is one of the geographical indicators we are going to replicating in Japan.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
How long will it be until the UK Government realise that this Japan deal is not as good as is being touted, and then U-turn and renege on it? Should my constituents take the Secretary of State’s word that they will not do so?
Elizabeth Truss
We have already made significant progress, achieving agreement in principle; we are working on the legal scrubbing, and I will bringing this back to Parliament very soon.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and her ministerial team on securing this deal in such quick order. Wales has a long history of attracting inward investment from Japan, with the first foreign direct investment project from Sony coming to Bridgend back in 1973. However, will she guarantee that the finest lamb in the world—Welsh lamb—will have its geographical indicator protected, so that we can continue our deep trading relationship with Japan?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right about the investment in both countries. This deal seeks to deepen that economic relationship, in services, in manufacturing and, of course, in agriculture. I am delighted to say that Welsh lamb is on the list of geographical indicators that should be recognised by Japan.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The north-east has benefited significantly from Japanese investment, so I welcome the continuation of existing trading relationships, which this deal largely represents. However, the Secretary of State will know that for Nissan and for investors more generally, and for jobs in the north-east, the deal that matters is the “oven-ready” one with the European Union. Will she set out precisely what the differences are between the state aid provisions in this Japanese deal and those rejected in the EU deal, apart from the fact that the latter are already in place?
Elizabeth Truss
I have recently visited Hitachi and Nissan, both of which are pleased with the progress we have made in the Japan deal. Of course, like all of us, they want a deal with the EU, but it has to be the right deal for Britain. My lesson, as Trade Secretary, is that we have to be prepared to hold out for the right deal.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on securing such an important deal? I hope she goes on to secure future deals for Britain. May I also encourage her to ensure that this new opportunity is considered in the integrated review, because our economic security and our national security go hand in hand?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right on that, and one important aspect of this deal and our relationship with Japan is that it is a leading free enterprise democracy. We need to be working with like-minded countries, not only to protect free trade across the world, but to make sure trade is fair. That is one of the huge benefits of joining CPTPP: it is a high standards trade agreement of countries that believe in free trade.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I welcome the progress that was made in relation to geographically protected indicators, a number of which come from the northern isles in relation to this deal? The Financial Times article, to which other Members have referred, does say that David Frost is concerned that the Secretary of State has given away more in relation to level-playing field issues than he is offering to the EU. If that is correct, then that is very serious indeed. Will she commit to publishing the state aid clauses now?
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the new listing of Orkney beef, Orkney lamb and Orkney Scottish Islands cheddar, and I think we also have a Shetland geographical indicator—
Elizabeth Truss
I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman denigrate foodstuffs from his own constituency. [Hon. Members: “Wool”!] I am sorry but I did not hear him. We are still in the legal scrubbing process with Japan —[Interruption.] That has nothing to do with wool. Once that process is finished, we will be sharing our text with the International Trade Committee, which will then fully analyse it.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend heartily and her chief trade negotiation adviser who, I think, led this particular negotiation if I recall correctly. I want to welcome the fact that the Government have agreed disciplines to avoid anti-competitive market distortions and subsidies in particular. Does she think that we could offer a similar regime to the EU in order to reassure it that we will be behaving fairly as an independent United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
We are very committed to behaving fairly in all our dealings, but, as I made clear earlier, what the EU is asking for is not a standard FTA clause, but for the EU state aid regime to be put into UK law, and that is not on.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Our total trade last year with Japan was worth £31 billion, which is hugely important, but to put it in perspective, our total trade last year with the Netherlands was three times that amount. Although we all welcome this deal, is the Secretary of State concerned that we have not yet secured our continued free trade with the Netherlands and the other 26 EU member states?
Elizabeth Truss
I do not think that £30 billion is to be sniffed at in terms of our trade with Japan. The hon. Lady must look to the future when what we will see is the vast majority of global growth coming from outside the EU. What we want is for the UK to be hitched to those growth opportunities, so that our businesses can expand. I do not see today as a maximum or a steady state. Of course we can do more in the future, but what these lower tariffs mean is that it will be easier and more economic for our businesses to export to Japan.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this fantastic deal, which demonstrates not just Britain’s place in Asia, but Britain’s place on the Asian and American continent as part of CPTPP. I am delighted that she is joining me and the Japanese Defence Minister in praising the CPTPP and encouraging Britain to play a more active part. Will she also, however, urge the Defence Secretary to bring the Japanese into the six eyes, as it will be then?
Elizabeth Truss
I will pass that call on to my colleague, the Defence Secretary. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the central importance of TPP, not just as a huge economic opportunity for the United Kingdom, but as a beacon of free trade and fair play that will be vital as we seek to reform the global trading system.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Based on the British Government’s own best-case scenario figures, am I right in calculating that it will take 71 deals of this nature to make up for what will be lost by pursuing the British Government’s policy of leaving the EU single market and customs union?
Elizabeth Truss
Mr Speaker, I think some hon. Members have got the wrong title of today’s statement. They seem to think that it is about the EU referendum, which I believe happened three years ago.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Last year, 717 businesses across the west midlands benefited from exporting to Japan, so does my right hon. Friend believe that places such as Birmingham will benefit from this £15 billion boost, which will help create jobs and economic advantages for local people, despite the many protests of the doomsters, gloomsters and doubters opposite, who said it would never happen?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We were previously being told that we would not get a deal with Japan, or we would not get a better deal than the EU had got with Japan. Well, that has been shown to be wrong, and the people who are going to benefit are the people of the midlands and around the country, who are going to see their goods able to be exported to Japan at a lower price, which means more jobs and more opportunities.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Free global trade is a good thing, but it does pose challenges under our climate change obligations. The Secretary of State has committed to an impact assessment. Will she also commit to have a chapter in there on the climate impacts and what we are doing to mitigate them to the lowest level possible?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are very strong climate change commitments in our agreement with Japan.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I echo the sentiments on this side of the House and offer my own personal congratulations to the Secretary of State on a great deal? Can my right hon. Friend provide greater detail on how this deal will make it easier for business people to move between the UK and Japan?
Elizabeth Truss
I certainly can. This deal goes beyond the deal the EU had agreed both in terms of UK business people being able to go to Japan and Japanese business people being able to come here. That is vitally important for industries such as financial services and professional services—for example, the increased ability to bring families with people on business visits—and there are wider rules about what type of professions qualify. Overall, this will see an increase in the exchange of professional people between both countries.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
We have already heard from many colleagues about the limitations of scrutiny within this House of this trade deal, but can the Secretary of State tell us what role there will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in having any input into the deal?
Elizabeth Truss
We have been very closely involving the Scottish Government in all our work. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Trade Minister spoke to his Scottish counterpart early today.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, it is in fact in the Derbyshire Dales that the best Stilton in the UK is made, with Hartington Blue, Dovedale Blue and other great cheeses such as Peakland White. Can my right hon. Friend further elucidate how this agreement will benefit my Stilton producers and other great cheese producers across the UK?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend certainly has a wide array of excellent Stiltons in her constituency. What we have done through this agreement is protect our access to low tariffs for Stilton, and gained a commitment from the Japanese to even wider access when we accede to CPTPP. Overall, for all types of cheese, we are seeing tariffs coming down, which will mean more of our great British product going into the Japanese market.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course, I welcome this because, as Asda would say, “Every little helps”—[Hon. Members: “That’s Tesco!”] Oh, is it? It is Morrisons in Porth in the Rhondda. But I am worried about Welsh lamb. There is a serious issue here, which is that 92.5% of Welsh lamb exports go to the EU, and even at the best estimates of what the Government are hoping for, only 3% will go to Japan, so if we end up with tariffs of 38% on the 92.5%, we will have killed the Welsh lamb industry. Will the Secretary of State really put all the energy she possibly can into getting a good deal for Welsh lamb with the EU as well as with Japan?
Elizabeth Truss
Of course, Lord Frost is negotiating the EU deal, and I know that one of his key areas is making sure we get good access for our agricultural products to the EU market. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that of course the US is the second largest importer of lamb in the world, so I hope for his strong support for a US deal as well as for our deal with Japan.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this deal. May I ask her what work she is undertaking with local stakeholders, particularly in the Black Country, so that my businesses in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton can truly take advantage of the opportunities presented by the deal?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), recently had a webinar with businesses from the Black Country, but of course as we approach 1 January, we want to encourage more businesses to get involved in this exciting trade with Japan. It is a huge market, the British brand is very appreciated there and it is also a gateway to the wider Pacific region.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Margaret Thatcher got Japanese car companies to come to Britain as a platform to export into the single market. As a result of this Japanese deal, along with the Secretary of State’s expected EU deal, will there be more or fewer Japanese cars being exported from Britain into the EU?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very pleased to hear the hon. Member’s tribute to our great Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher. That is a first from him, and I hope it is the first of many. The answer is that we want a successful British car industry, and car companies such as Nissan are supportive of this deal because it brings extra benefits to the UK.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an excellent deal for the United Kingdom, that it offers great possibilities for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that it is just another reason why we are better off together as a Union?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This deal has benefits and opportunities for all of the UK. It is a central part of levelling up our country, ensuring that every region and nation has those opportunities and gets jobs and growth into its local areas.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow for 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.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Monday 14th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 11 September 2020 - (14 Sep 2020)
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 349 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 340 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 343 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that the amendment in the name of Keir Starmer has been selected.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time—and that this House act to preserve one of the crucial achievements of the past three centuries, namely our British ability to trade freely across the whole of these islands.
The creation of our United Kingdom by the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801 was not simply a political event, but an act of conscious economic integration that laid the foundations for the world’s first industrial revolution and the prosperity we enjoy today. When other countries in Europe stayed divided, we joined our fortunes together and allowed the invisible hand of the market to move Cornish pasties to Scotland, Scottish beef to Wales, Welsh beef to England, and Devonshire clotted cream to Northern Ireland or wherever else it might be enjoyed.
When we chose to join the EU back in 1973, we also thereby decided that the EU treaties should serve as the legal guarantor of these freedoms. Now that we have left the EU and the transition period is about to elapse, we need the armature of our law once again to preserve the arrangements on which so many jobs and livelihoods depend. That is the fundamental purpose of this Bill, which should be welcomed by everyone who cares about the sovereignty and integrity of our United Kingdom.
We shall provide the legal certainty relied upon by every business in our country, including, of course, in Northern Ireland. The manifesto on which this Government were elected last year promised business in Northern Ireland
“unfettered access to the rest of the UK”.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am listening carefully to what the Prime Minister is saying, but why did one of his own distinguished Members describe his policy this week as “Nixonian Madman Theory”? Is the Prime Minister not deeply worried that his policies and approach are being compared to those of the disgraced former US President Richard Nixon, rather than someone like Winston Churchill?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think that this Bill is essential for guaranteeing the economic and political integrity of the United Kingdom and simply sets out to achieve what the people of this country voted for when they supported our election manifesto: not only unfettered access from NI to GB and from GB to NI, but also—I quote from the manifesto—to
“maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
The Prime Minister
I will not.
The Bill is designed to honour that pledge and maintain those freedoms. When we renegotiated our withdrawal agreement from the EU, we struck a careful balance to reflect Northern Ireland’s integral place in our United Kingdom, while preserving an open border with Ireland, with the express and paramount aim of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the peace process. In good faith, we accepted certain obligations in the Northern Ireland protocol in order to give our European friends the assurances they sought on the integrity of their single market, while avoiding any change to the border on the island of Ireland. We agreed to conduct some light-touch processes on goods passing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case they were transferred to the EU.
The Prime Minister
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the subject.
Jim Shannon
This is a very important debate, as the Prime Minister and I know and as everyone in the House knows. Does he accept that the EU’s determination to use Northern Ireland as a stick to beat the UK with as punishment for daring to leave an institution that had no respect or concern for our people has been underlined by the behaviour of MEPs, and indeed of some in this House, as they seek again, against the will of the majority of people, to stop Brexit instead of doing the honourable thing: respecting the vote and the recent general election validation, taking care of the UK and putting our people first, as the Prime Minister has said he will do? This legislation is a way of doing that.
The Prime Minister
The intention of the Bill is clearly to stop any such use of the stick against this country, and that is what it does. It is a protection, it is a safety net, it is an insurance policy, and it is a very sensible measure.
In a spirit of reasonableness, we are conducting these checks in accordance with our obligations. We are creating the sanitary and phytosanitary processes required under the protocol and spending hundreds of millions of pounds on helping traders. Under this finely balanced arrangement, our EU friends agreed that Northern Ireland—this is a crucial point—would remain part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, able to benefit from free trade deals with other countries, which we are now beginning to strike. It ensures that the majority of goods not at risk of travelling to the EU—and that is the majority of goods going from GB to Northern Ireland—do not have to pay tariffs.
But the details of this intricate deal and the obvious tensions between some of its provisions can only be resolved with a basic minimum of common sense and good will from all sides. I regret to have to tell the House that in recent months the EU has suggested that it is willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths, using the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that goes well beyond common sense simply to exert leverage against the UK in our negotiations for a free trade agreement. To take the most glaring example, the EU has said that if we fail to reach an agreement to its satisfaction, it might very well refuse to list the UK’s food and agricultural products for sale anywhere in the EU. It gets even worse, because under this protocol, that decision would create an instant and automatic prohibition on the transfer of our animal products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Our interlocutors on the other side are holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that there is no greater obligation for MPs than to our voters, that the British people were told that no deal is better than a bad deal and we would prosper without a deal, and that given that the EU refuses to negotiate in good faith, we have no alternative but to legislate to protect our internal market?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Absurd and self-defeating as that action would be, even as we debate this matter, the EU has not taken that particular revolver off the table. I hope that it will do so and that we can reach a Canada-style free trade agreement as well.
It is such an extraordinary threat, and it seems so incredible that the EU could do this, that we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist, because I am afraid that they reveal the spirit in which some of our friends are currently minded to conduct these negotiations. It goes to what m’learned friends would call the intention of some of those involved in the talks. I think the mens rea—
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
Sir Robert Neill
I never object to another promotion.
I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister says, but does he accept that were our interlocutors in the EU to behave in such an egregious fashion, which would clearly be objectionable and unacceptable to us, there is already provision under the withdrawal agreement for an arbitrary arrangement to be put in place? Were we to take reserve powers, does he accept that those reserve powers should be brought into force only as a final backstop if we have, in good faith, tried to act under the withdrawal agreement and are then frustrated? The timing under which they come into force is very important for our reputation as upholders of the rule of law.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. He knows a great deal about this matter, and it is of great importance that we go through the legal procedures, as we will. As things stand, however, in addition to the potential blockade on agricultural goods, there are other avenues that the EU could explore if it is determined to interpret the protocol in absurd ways, and if it fails to negotiate in good faith. We must now take a package of protective powers in the Bill, and subsequently.
For example, there is the question of tariffs in the Irish sea. When we signed the protocol, we accepted that goods “at risk” of going from Great Britain into the EU via Northern Ireland should pay the EU tariff as they crossed the Irish sea—we accepted that—but that any goods staying within Northern Ireland would not do so. The protocol created a joint committee to identify, with the EU, which goods were at risk of going into Ireland. That sensible process was one achievement of our agreement, and our view is that that forum remains the best way of solving that question.
I am afraid that some in the EU are now relying on legal defaults to argue that every good is “at risk”, and therefore liable for tariffs. That would mean tariffs that could get as high as 90% by value on Scottish beef going to Northern Ireland, and moving not from Stranraer to Dublin but from Stranraer to Belfast within our United Kingdom. There would be tariffs of potentially more than 61% on Welsh lamb heading from Anglesey to Antrim, and of potentially more than 100% on clotted cream moving from Torridge—to pick a Devonshire town at random—to Larne. That is unreasonable and plainly against the spirit of that protocol.
The EU is threatening to carve tariff borders across our own country, to divide our land, to change the basic facts about the economic geography of the United Kingdom and, egregiously, to ride roughshod over its own commitment under article 4 of the protocol, whereby
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”
We cannot have a situation where the boundaries of our country could be dictated by a foreign power or international organisation. No British Prime Minister, no Government, and no Parliament could ever accept such an imposition.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Derbyshire Dales lamb, grown in our country, can be enjoyed by our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland, which is part of our country?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much. The best way for us all to be sure that such lamb can be sold throughout the whole United Kingdom is to vote for this Bill, and to protect the economic integrity of the UK. [Interruption.] To answer the questions that are being shouted at me from a sedentary position, last year we signed the withdrawal agreement in the belief, which I still hold, that the EU would be reasonable. After everything that has recently happened, we must consider the alternative. We asked for reasonableness, common sense, and balance, and we still hope to achieve that through the joint committee process, in which we will always persevere, no matter what the provocation.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I want to ask him, if I may, about the ministerial code. When I was the Attorney General in the previous Government, I was happy to confirm that the ministerial code obliged Ministers to comply with international as well as domestic law. This Bill will give Ministers overt authority to break international law. Has the position on the ministerial code changed?
The Prime Minister
No, not in the least. My right hon. and learned Friend can consult the Attorney General’s position on that. After all, what this Bill is simply seeking to do is insure and protect this country against the EU’s proven willingness—that is the crucial point—to use this delicately balanced protocol in ways for which it was never intended.
The Bill includes our first step to protect our country against such a contingency by creating a legal safety net taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom. I understand how some people will feel unease over the use of these powers, and I share that sentiment. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I have absolutely no desire to use these measures. They are an insurance policy, and if we reach agreement with our European friends, which I still believe is possible, they will never be invoked. Of course, it is the case that the passing of this Bill does not constitute the exercising of these powers.
The Prime Minister
If the powers were ever needed, Ministers would return to this House with a statutory instrument on which a vote—perhaps this is the question to which the hon. Gentleman is awaiting an answer—would be held. We would simultaneously pursue every possible redress—to get back to the point I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—under international law, as provided for in the protocol.
In addition to our steps in domestic law, if we had to make clear that we believed the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith, as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, we would seek an arbitration panel and consider safeguards under article 16 of the protocol.
It is a question not of if we meet our obligations, but of how we fulfil them. We must do so in a way that satisfies the fundamental purpose of the protocol, the Belfast Good Friday agreement and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will work with the EU on all of these issues. Even if we have to use these powers, we will continue to engage with the joint committee so that any dispute is resolved as quickly and as amicably as possible, reconciling the integrity of the EU single market with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory.
What we cannot do now is tolerate a situation where our EU counterparts seriously believe that they have the power to break up our country. If that is what hon. Members on the Opposition Benches want them to have, then I am afraid that they are grievously mistaken. That illusion must be decently dispatched, and that is why these reserve powers are enshrined in the Bill.
In addition, the Bill will help deliver the single biggest transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations since their creation, covering a total of 160 different policy areas. Each devolved Administration will also be fully and equally involved in the oversight of the UK’s internal market through a new independent body, the Office for the Internal Market. The Bill will maintain our common cause of high standards, where we already go beyond the EU in areas ranging from health and safety to consumer and environmental protections.
Chris Bryant
May I take the Prime Minister back to the question asked by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)? It seems to me quintessential to the way we do our business that Ministers abide by the law. Indeed, the Justice Secretary is required by law to swear that he will uphold the rule of law. How, therefore, can the Prime Minister seriously advance a piece of legislation that says:
“regulations…are not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law”.
That is just gobbledegook, isn’t it? It is complete and utter nonsense.
The Prime Minister
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I made it very clear that we do not relish the prospect of having to use these powers at all. We hope very much, as I said, that the EU will be reasonable, but any democratically elected Government of this country—indeed, I would say any MP representing the people of this country—must be obliged to do whatever he or she can to uphold the territorial integrity of this country. That is what we are doing. Furthermore, instead of UK taxpayers’ money being disbursed by the EU, this Bill, which is an excellent Bill, will allow the Government to invest billions of pounds across the whole of the UK to level up.
A year ago, this Parliament was deadlocked, exasperating the British people by its failure to fulfil their democratic wishes and, worst of all, by undermining our negotiators, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will recall. Effectively, Parliament told the EU that if it played hardball, this House would oblige it by weakening our country’s hand and legally forbid our representatives from walking away from the negotiating table. I hope that this House will never make that mistake again. Instead, let us seize the opportunity presented by this Bill and send a message of unity and resolve. Let us say together to our European friends that we want a great future relationship and a fantastic free trade deal.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Prime Minister will remember that we have some history in this regard. I did not want us to leave with no agreement last year, and we fell out over that. But he was true to his word and we had an agreement.
We said in our manifesto:
“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK”.
Is it not the truth of the matter that the way to do that is either through this Bill or by agreeing the free trade agreement—the Canada-style deal—that the EU said was on the table and of which the Prime Minister said when he came into office, “Okay, they now seem to have stepped back from that”?
I thank the Prime Minister for saying that tonight is difficult for some of us, but this is an important piece of legislation. Will he assure me that it is still his policy and the policy of his Government to secure that FTA with the EU that it said it wanted and that we know we want?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the spirit in which he asked his question and made that important point. He is absolutely right to focus on where we are now in our talks on the free trade agreement. It is by passing the Bill tonight and in subsequent days that we will make the possibility of that great free trade agreement more real and get it done sooner.
Therefore, with this Bill we will expedite a free trade agreement not only with our European friends and partners, but with friends and partners around the world; we will support jobs and growth throughout the whole United Kingdom; we will back our negotiators in Brussels; and, above all, we will protect the territorial integrity of the UK and the peace process in Northern Ireland. I urge the House to support the Bill and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) rightly said, to get back to the business of securing a free trade agreement with our closest neighbours that we would all wish to see. I commend the Bill to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House notes that the UK has left the EU; calls on the Government to get on with negotiating a trade deal with the EU; recognises that legislation is required to ensure the smooth, effective working of the internal market across the UK; but declines to give a Second Reading to the Internal Market Bill because this Bill undermines the Withdrawal Agreement already agreed by Parliament, re-opens discussion about the Northern Ireland Protocol that has already been settled, breaches international law, undermines the devolution settlements and would tarnish the UK’s global reputation as a law-abiding nation and the UK’s ability to enforce other international trade deals and protect jobs and the economy.”
There are two questions at the heart of the Bill and of why we will oppose it tonight. First, how do we get an internal market after 1 January within the UK while upholding the devolution settlements, which have been a vital part of our constitution for two decades and are essential to our Union? Secondly, will our country abide by the rule of law—a rules-based international order, for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up?
Those are not small questions. They go to the heart of who we are as a country and the character of this Government. Let me start with the first question. An internal market is vital for trade and jobs at home, but also for our ability to strike trade deals. It is the responsibility of the UK Government at Westminster to safeguard that market and legislate. On that, we agree with the Government. But that must be done while understanding that the governance of our country has changed in the last two decades. Two decades of devolution settlements reflect a decision that we would share power across our four nations, including devolving key powers over issues such as animal welfare, food safety and aspects of environmental legislation. We should legislate for an internal market, but in a way that respects the role and voice of devolved Governments in setting those standards. That is to respect the devolution settlement. From across the UK, we have heard that the Government are not doing that; that they want to legislate with a blunderbuss approach that does not do that and simply says that the lowest standard in one Parliament must become the standard for all, with no proper voice for devolved Governments. If the Westminster Government decided to lower standards, there would be no voice for the devolved nations, even in a discussion about those standards because the Government have decided not to legislate for common frameworks.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the matter. We have Joint Ministerial Committees, and huge progress had been made in the last few months on agreeing frameworks that would allow us to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman asked for. Is not the right way to proceed through frameworks in agreement with the devolved Administrations, not the race to the bottom that we get with the Bill?
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman and I come from different positions. I want to respect the devolution settlements that uphold the Union and he has a different point of view, but on this matter we should be legislating for common frameworks. That would be the way to respect devolution. I do not know whether the Prime Minister even understands the legislation—I know he has many things on his plate—but I am sorry to say that on this issue, the Government’s approach has been cavalier. Since 2017, common frameworks have developed and the Government could have legislated for that. We will seek to do that during the Bill’s passage.
The issues were prefigured in the White Paper. Since then, we have an even bigger question to confront. Let me say at the outset that we want the smoothest trade across our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. There is a way to resolve those issues in the Joint Committee set up for that purpose. I have to say that, from a man who said he wanted to get Brexit done and won an election on it, the Bill gets Brexit undone by overturning key aspects of the protocol that were agreed.
I have been part of many issues of contention across the Dispatch Box, but I never thought that respecting international law would be a matter of disagreement in my lifetime. As Leader of the Opposition, I stood opposite the Prime Minister’s predecessor David Cameron for five years. I do not know why the Prime Minister is rolling his eyes. I disagreed with David Cameron profoundly on many issues, but I could never have imagined him coming along and saying, “We are going to legislate to break international law” on an agreement that we had signed as a country less than a year earlier. Yet that is what the Bill does, in the Government’s own words.
I want to address three questions at the heart of the matter. Is it right to threaten to break the law in the way the Government propose? Is it necessary to do so? Will it help our country? The answer to each question is no. Let us remember the context and the principle. If there is one thing that we are known for around the world, it is the rule of law. This is the country of Magna Carta; the country that is known for being the mother of all Parliaments; and the country that, out of the darkness of the second world war, helped found the United Nations. Our global reputation for rule making, not rule breaking, is one of the reasons that we are so respected around the world. When people think of Britain, they think of the rule of law. Despite what the Prime Minister said in his speech, let us be clear that this is not an argument about remain versus leave. It is an argument about right versus wrong.
The Brexiteer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lamont, says that the Bill is impossible to defend. The Brexiteer and former Attorney General who helped to negotiate and sign off this deal as Attorney General says that the Bill is “unconscionable”. And the Brexiteer Lord Howard—the Prime Minister’s former boss—said this:
“I never thought it was a thing I’d hear a British minister, far less a Conservative minister, say, which is that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of international law…We have a reputation for probity, for upholding the rule of law, and it’s a reputation that is very precious and ought to be safeguarded, and I am afraid it was severely damaged…by the bill”.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the EU has been negotiating in good faith?
Edward Miliband
It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that because a report came out today from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is chaired by a Conservative Member. This is what the report says and this is my answer to him:
“These talks began in March and continued throughout the summer in a spirit of good faith and mutual respect for the delicate arrangements in Northern Ireland.”
That is what the Conservative-controlled Select Committee says about this issue.
The Prime Minister has said many times that he wants to bring unity to the country during his premiership. I therefore congratulate him on having, in just one short year, united his five predecessors. Unfortunately, their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office. Why are these five former Prime Ministers so united on this point? It is because they know that our moral authority in the world comes from our commitment to the rule of law and keeping our word. We rightly condemn China when it rides roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of Hong Kong. We say it signed them in good faith, that it is going back on its word and that it cannot be trusted. And his defence? “Don’t worry; I can’t be trusted either.” What will China say to us from now on? What will it throw back at us—that we, too, do not keep to international law?
Edward Miliband
Actually, yes we do, and I will tell the hon. Lady why. We respect the fact that the Conservative party, under this Prime Minister, won the election. He got his mandate to deliver his Brexit deal: the thing that he said was—I am sure she recalls this because it was probably on her leaflets—“oven ready”. It is not me who is coming along and saying it is half-baked; it is him. He is saying, “The deal that I signed and agreed is actually—what’s the word? Ambiguous. Problematic.” I will get to this later in my speech, but I wonder whether he actually read the deal in the first place.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. Would he perhaps tell the House who on earth might have signed this terrible deal with so many ambiguities less than nine months ago?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point; I do believe it was the Prime Minister who signed the deal.
In fairness to the Prime Minister, I want to deal with each of the arguments that the Government have made in the last few days for this action. It is quite hard to keep count of the different arguments—you know you are losing the argument when you keep making lots of different arguments—but I want to give the House the top five. First, let us deal with the argument about blockades, which made its first outing in The Telegraph on Saturday through the Prime Minister, and obviously it made a big appearance today.
I have to say, I did not like the ramping up of the rhetoric from the European Union on Thursday, following the Prime Minister’s publication of this Bill, but even by the standards of the Prime Minister, this is as ridiculous an argument as I have ever heard. Let me let me explain to him why—the point was very well made by the former Attorney General this morning. This is what article 16 of the protocol says:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
In other words, let us just say that this threat somehow materialised—and by the way, I believe that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials would have to implement it, making it even more absurd that it would happen. If the threat materialised, it is not overturning the protocol that is the right thing to do; it is upholding the protocol, as article 16 says. But do not take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; take the word of the former Attorney General—who definitely read the protocol—who wrote this morning:
“There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s government”.
As if that was not enough, there is also an irony here—the Prime Minister tried to slip this in; I do not know whether the House noticed—which is that this Bill does precisely nothing to address the issue of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is about two issues where the Government are going to override international law: exit declarations, Northern Ireland to GB, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. If the Prime Minister wants to tell us that there is another part of the Bill that I have not noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of blockade, I will very happily give way to him. I am sure he has read it; I am sure he knows it in detail, because he is a details man. Come on, tell us: what clause protects against the threat, which he says he is worried about, to GB-to-Northern Ireland exports? I give way to him. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot give way unless he is asked to.
Edward Miliband
There you have it: he didn’t read the protocol, he hasn’t read the Bill, he doesn’t know his stuff.
Let us deal with the second bogus argument. The Prime Minister claimed on Wednesday that it was necessary to protect the Good Friday agreement. The first outing for that argument was on Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s questions. I have to say to him, I would rather trust the authors of the Good Friday agreement than the Prime Minister, who has prominent members of the Government who opposed the agreement at the time. However, this is what John Major and Tony Blair wrote—[Interruption.] They don’t like John Major. They said that the Bill
“puts the Good Friday agreement at risk”—
[Interruption]—this is very serious—
“because it negates the predictability, political stability and legal clarity that are integral to the delicate balance between the north and south of Ireland that is at the core of the peace process.”
These are very important words from two former Prime Ministers, both of whom helped to win us peace in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister may not want to believe them, but he will, I hope, believe himself—[Laughter]—maybe not—because this is what he said about the Northern Ireland protocol:
“there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border that deserve particular respect and sensitivity, and that is what they have received in the deal.”
It is
“a great deal for Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 578-579.]
I do not understand this. He signed the deal. It is his deal. It is the deal that he said would protect the people of Northern Ireland. I have to say to him, this is not just legislative hooliganism on any issue; it is on one of the most sensitive issues of all. I think we should take the word of two former Prime Ministers of this country who helped to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Before the shadow spokesman lectures the Prime Minister about reading documentation or starts lecturing us about the Good Friday agreement, does he not recognise, first of all, that the Good Friday agreement talks about the principle of consent to change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which is what this protocol does? The Good Friday agreement has within it a mechanism to safeguard the minorities in Northern Ireland through a cross-community vote, which again the protocol removed. So before he starts talking about the threats to the Good Friday agreement, does he not recognise that the protocol was a threat to it in the first place?
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman did not like the protocol at all. He would rather have not had the protocol. He and I just have a disagreement on this issue. I believe it was necessary to make special arrangements for Northern Ireland, or for the UK to be in the EU customs union to avoid a hard border in Ireland. That is why the Prime Minister came along and said the protocol was the right thing to do.
Let me deal with the third excuse we heard. This is the “It was all a bit of a rush” excuse. As the Prime Minister said in his article, times were “torrid” and there were “serious misunderstandings”. He tries to pretend that this is some new issue, but they have been warned for months about the way the protocol would work. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is sitting in his place, was warned at the Select Committee in March and was asked about these issues. The Business Secretary was written to by the House of Lords Committee in April.
Let us just get this straight for a minute, because I think it is important to take a step back. The Prime Minister is coming to the House to tell us today that his flagship achievement—the deal he told us was a triumph, the deal he said was oven-ready, the deal on which he fought and won the general election—is now contradictory and ambiguous. What incompetence. What failure of governance. How dare he try to blame everyone else? I say to the Prime Minister that this time he cannot blame the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), he cannot blame John Major, he cannot blame the judges, he cannot blame the civil servants, he cannot sack the Cabinet Secretary again. There is only one person responsible for it and that is him. This is his deal. It is his mess. It is his failure. For the first time in his life, it is time to take responsibility. It is time to ’fess up: either he was not straight with the country about the deal in the first place, or he did not understand it.
A competent Government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions they could not live with. If such a Government somehow missed the point but woke up later, they would do what any competent business would do after it realised it could not live with the terms of a contract: they would negotiate a way out in good faith. That is why this is all so unnecessary. There is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose in the agreement: the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. What did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say on 11 March at the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union? He will recall that he was asked about state aid. He said:
“the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the Joint Committee to resolve.”
The remaining issues to which the Bill speaks are not insignificant, but nor are they insurmountable, and that is the right way to pursue them, not an attempt at illegality.
Let me come back to the excuses. Fourthly, on Sunday, there was the Justice Secretary’s “the fire alarm” defence: “We don’t want to have to do this, but we might have to.” I want to be clear with the House about something very, very important about a decision to pass the Bill. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but I want to make this point. The very act of passing the Bill is itself a breach of international law. It would be wrong for hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House to be under any illusions about that as they decide which Lobby to go into tonight. If we pass the Bill, even if there is a nod and a wink from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we equip the Government with the power to break the law. That in itself is a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol and therefore a breach of international law.
Sir Robert Neill
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s formulation and I understand much of what he says. However, an Act passed by this House only becomes law when it comes into force. He will be right, I submit, to say that as soon as any of these provisions came into force we would potentially breach international law. That is not quite the same thing, as I think he would fairly concede.
Edward Miliband
That is not a risk we are going to take.
So the fire alarm defence simply does not work. The last defence was floated as a trial balloon, one might say, by the Northern Ireland Secretary last Tuesday, I believe. He said it was a breach of the law in a “specific and limited way.” That really is a new way of thinking about legal questions. It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this Government. We have all heard of self-defence, the alibi defence, the innocence defence; now we have the Johnson defence: you can break the law, but in a specific and limited way.
Think about the grave context we face. The Home Secretary is in today’s newspapers warning everyone, “You must abide by the law.” On this, she is absolutely right. She says,
“I know that, as part of our national effort, the law-abiding majority will stick to these new rules. But there will be a small minority who do not”.
You couldn’t make it up. What she does not say in the article, but what we now know about this Government, is that the Johnson defence means something very specific: there is one rule for the British public and another rule for this Government. Pioneered by Cummings, implemented by Johnson—that is the Johnson rule.
This is the wrong thing to do. It is not necessary and it is deeply damaging to this country. Let us think about the impact on our country in the negotiations. The Government’s hope is that it will make a deal more likely, but that relies on the notion that reneging on a deal we made less than a year ago with the party we are negotiating with now will make that party more likely to trust us, not less. Think about our everyday lives: suppose we made an agreement with someone a year ago and we were seeking to have another negotiation with them; if we had unilaterally reneged on the first deal we made, would it make them more likely to trust us, or less likely? Obviously, it would make them less likely to trust us.
We know the risks. I very much hope the Prime Minister gets a deal. As a country, we absolutely need a deal. We know the risks of no deal if this strategy goes wrong. The Prime Minister said last week that no deal is somehow “a good outcome”. He is wrong. I hear all the time from businesses—I am sure the Business Secretary, who is in his place, does too—that are deeply worried about the danger of no deal. I know what the Prime Minister thinks about the views of business, thanks to his four-letter rant, but this is what businesses have to say. Nissan says there could be no guarantee about its Sunderland plant if there were tariffs on UK to EU trade. Ford says that no deal would be disastrous. The NFU says it would be catastrophic for British farming—indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said the same thing. We are in the biggest economic crisis for 300 years, the biggest public health crisis for 100 years. No deal is not some game; it is about the livelihoods of millions of people across our country.
What about the prized trade deal with the United States? I know the Prime Minister thinks he has a friend in President Trump, but even he must recognise the necessity of being able to deal with both sides. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said:
“The UK must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU… If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”
This is the signal that we—the country known for the rule of law, the country that abides by the law, the country that founded international law—are sending to our friends and allies around the world. That is why we cannot support the Bill.
The Government must go back, remove the provisions breaking international law and ensure that the Bill works in a way that respects the devolution settlements. That is what a responsible, competent and law-abiding Government would do. This is a pivotal moment to determine the future of our country—who we are and how we operate. In shaping that future, we have to stand up for the traditions that matter: our commitment to the rule of law. The Bill speaks of a Government and a Prime Minister who are casual, not to say cavalier and reckless, about the gravity of the issues confronting them. The Prime Minister should be focusing on securing a Brexit deal, not breaking international law and risking no deal. He is cavalier on international law and cavalier on our traditions. This is not the serious leadership we need, and it is why we will oppose the Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I should draw to the attention of the House that 100 Members are hoping to catch my eye from the Back Benches. It will not be possible to call everyone, but in order to allow as many people as possible to participate in such an important debate, we will have a time limit of four minutes with immediate effect. I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
It would be unconscionable for us to have left the EU lawfully, which the EU has accepted, and then allow it to threaten us and strangle our jobs and businesses by imposing unfair state aid rules that go much wider than traditional subsidies, and then for it to seek unwarranted legal action when we are properly defending our national, economic and political sovereignty. If so, we would become a neutered, trivial Lilliput—an enslaved economic satellite of the EU. No UK Parliament could allow itself to be so prostrated. We won the referendum and the general election across the country because voters wanted to leave the EU and free ourselves from undemocratic rule from Brussels and from majority voting, and to regain our right to govern ourselves and our economic freedom. This Bill guarantees that promise to them and maintains the Union.
International law comes in all shapes and sizes. There are many instances of express override in UK statute law. The EU itself sometimes breaks international law, including refusing certain compliance with World Trade Organisation rules. EU retaliation by a blockade would be utterly unlawful. Even the Belfast agreement contains “notwithstanding” provisions, as does USA statute law. The express powers in the Bill, which constitute the taking of powers rather than actual implementation, are justified precautions against the risk of an expansionist interpretation of article 10 of the protocol, which would lead to great uncertainty, litigation risk and a serious threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom into the indefinite future.
There has never been a level playing field in the EU. Its cardinal objective in these negotiations from the outset has included preventing us from being able to compete fairly. That is not good faith. Under the protocol, the EU would even control our legal tax freedom to create freeports and enterprise zones. All of this would massively undermine our businesses and jobs and therefore our voters.
Let us consider the wide legal sphere of EU state aid regulation. It is concerned with not only subsidies but tax reliefs; taxation favouring particular sectors or undertakings; remission of national insurance contributions; bank bail-outs such as those of RBS and Lloyds, where contrived, draconian EU legal conditions were imposed; and a raft of other measures too numerous to list, including gas tariffs for horticulture, airport landing fees, private health insurance, carbon trading emission certificates for free, failing to follow public procurement procedures and so on. By contrast, more recently, the German Government have procured approval for vast amounts of aid, notably for Lufthansa, and this is a pattern that has continued for decades across many commercial sectors. I recommend that people read Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s article today in The Daily Telegraph.
Mr Šefčovič has outrageously dared to threaten the UK Parliament itself if we do not remove the clauses, and he misrepresents our position on the Good Friday agreement. This contradicts our sovereignty and autonomy, which the EU accepted. The EU seeks to subject us to a foreign regulator, taking essentially political decisions and armed with undemocratic prohibition powers and authorisations. It would be unconscionable and utterly naive for us to allow that to happen. It would be contrary to our national interests at this time of economic instability generated by coronavirus.
I remind the House that section 38 of the 2020 Act was passed without a single person in either House formally objecting, either on Second Reading or in Committee. The Bill is needed as an insurance policy and as a guarantee of our national sovereignty within the meaning of the Vienna convention, and our national security.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Over the past few years, we have all witnessed this Tory Government plunging this Parliament and our broader politics into ever deeper chaos and disgrace. In that time, Scotland has been dragged out of the European Union against our will. It is almost a year to the day on which this Parliament was illegally prorogued, and in recent months a raft of senior civil servants has been forced out the door. That instability is this UK Parliament’s new normal; it is now part and parcel of a broken Westminster system.
Here we are again: having dragged us deeper and deeper into their dangerous agenda for the past four years, today this right-wing Brexit cabal has reached rock bottom. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is the greatest threat to devolution that Scotland has faced since our Parliament was reconvened with the overwhelming support of the Scottish people in 1999. We are discussing the principles of a Bill that this Tory Government casually and brazenly admit violates international and domestic law—a Bill that cynically uses the precious peace at the heart of the Good Friday agreement as nothing more than a Brexit bargaining chip.
The Bill runs to 50 pages, but people across these islands have a right to know exactly what it proposes to do. It does two fundamentally dangerous and undemocratic things: it breaks international law and it breaks devolution. Those two facts explain why there has been such a widespread chorus of opposition to the Bill. That opposition comes from every profession, sector and corner of these islands, and it is why this legislation should and must be resisted by anyone who claims to respect the rule of law and anyone who claims to respect the current devolution settlement.
As we know, there is opposition on the Conservative Benches. In the other place, the former Tory leader, Lord Howard, told the Government that the legislation would result in the UK is showing itself as having “scant regard” for its treaty obligations. When the Government are getting verbally slaughtered by a Brexiteer who has—how shall I say it?—“something of the night” about him, it is as clear as day that the Tories have gone way beyond the pale.
The Law Society of Scotland has commented on the Bill, stating:
“The bill should, as a matter of principle, comply with public international law and the rule of international law, pacta sunt servanda…should be honoured. Adherence to the rule of law underpins our democracy and our society. We believe that to knowingly break with the UK’s reputation for following public international law could have far-reaching economic, legal and political consequences and should not be taken lightly.”
I repeat: to knowingly break international law. I ask each Member to think on that tonight.
Every Member has a choice. We know that the Bill breaks international law—so many learned individuals, including the previous Attorney General, have told us so. Tonight, this House can tell the Government that it is not on and that this House is not going to be complicit in a breach of international law. I venture that that is the responsibility that each Member has. Every Member—every Member, Madam Deputy Speaker—should examine their conscience. This is about a Bill that breaches the terms of a treaty, the ink of which is barely dry and on the delivery of which the governing party fought an election.
Ms Angela Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is making points that go to the heart of the Bill, and I share his worries about them. Does he share my worries that the Bill also attempts to curtail judicial review, or prevent it entirely, once that law has been broken?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Lady is correct about that, because we know that the Government have got into trouble with the judiciary over their actions in the past, and I will come on to talk about that.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who spoke for the Opposition, was correct when he said that the Prime Minister cannot pretend that he did not know the terms of the treaty or its obligations when he signed it—that simply beggars belief. This is a test for the House this evening; do not wait for the Committee stage, as legally, morally and ethically the right thing to do is to vote down this Bill tonight. This House must be accountable. Do not follow the Prime Minister in acquiescing in breaking the law—if you vote to give the Bill its Second Reading tonight, that is exactly what you are all doing. So this is a test, and I understand the challenge the Conservative Members face. Do not support the Prime Minister by breaking the law this evening—it is as simple as that.
Of course, the Prime Minister has form: a year ago he went to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, an illegal act that the courts forced him to reverse. Here he is again—although in this case he is not, because he has run off—woefully breaking international law this time, seeking to ask the Queen to enact legislation that breaks international law. We have the power individually and collectively to stop the Prime Minister in this act of madness this evening. This is a matter of principle; it is about this House saying that we should not breach our legal obligations—I implore the House to say exactly that.
We were expecting the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to have drawn the short straw in having to come here to argue for this dreadful piece of legislation, but he was stood down. We all know who the parcel of rogues are behind this legislation; this Bill has the fingerprints of the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and, of course, Dominic Cummings. We have just heard the bluff and bluster of the Prime Minister in seeking to defend the indefensible. He can try all he likes to dress this up as a business Bill, but no amount of dressing up will hide the fact that this is a naked power grab. The Tories are fooling no one, least of all businesses in Scotland. If this UK Government were actually serious about delivering an ounce of business confidence, they would not be threatening to blow apart any hope of a future trade deal with the European Union.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
We can see from the right hon. Gentleman’s speech so far that he clearly shares many of the concerns of the Labour Front-Bench team. On that basis, will he confirm that he will be supporting the reasoned amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the question. We will be voting against this Bill this evening but we will not be supporting the reasoned amendment, because of some of the other conditions attached to it, not least that there should be a single market Act that does not enshrine the rights of the devolved nations to be able to protect their own interests—that is the fundamental difference we have this evening. I ask the House to oppose the Bill and vote it down on Second Reading.
The provisions of this legislation recklessly and deliberately risk a bad deal or, increasingly, the economic devastation of a no deal. You cannot claim to support business while pursuing a bad Brexit. You cannot claim to support business by burdening it with yet more economic uncertainty, in the face of a global pandemic, one where we know the challenges we face. Yet, in the midst of this, the Prime Minister brings this Bill. The Government cannot claim to support the Scottish economy by taking more economic powers away from Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament.
I will turn now to some of the contents of the Bill, and specifically the numerous aspects that will undermine the powers and authority of Scotland’s Parliament. Clauses 2 to 9 contain sweeping powers that could act to compel Scotland to accept lower standards set elsewhere in the UK. That means standards on animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection to name but a few. We all know the risk and the threat that that will bring, especially for Scotland’s farmers and consumers. This law is a Tory invitation for chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef in our supermarkets. [Interruption.] We can hear the guffawing from the Conservative Benches, but yesterday morning on “Politics Scotland” a Treasury Minister more or less admitted that they could not stop chlorinated chicken coming into the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Go and check the tapes; it is there.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman shares my dismay that the non-discrimination clause would mean that popular policies already made by the Welsh Government and our Senedd to do with the smoking ban, the ban on plastic bags, and organ donation could have been called in and not been valid under this legislation.
Ian Blackford
The right hon. Member makes a very good point. There are policies that we are very proud of introducing in Scotland, such as minimum alcohol pricing, which was so critical in dealing with misuse of alcohol in Scotland, but there is no guarantee that we would be able to bring in such initiatives in the future. We would have to go cap in hand to Westminster for authority. The days of us being “too wee, too poor, too stupid” are well and truly over.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Ian Blackford
The sneering contempt that we get from the Minister for the Cabinet Office—he really ought to be ashamed of himself.
In part four, provision is made for the establishment of a new unelected monitoring body called the Office for the Internal Market. The Bill proposes to hand that unelected body—we often hear about unelected bureaucrats, but here we are—the power to pass judgment on devolved laws, directly over the heads of the Scottish people’s chosen Government. It will also lead to an open invitation for businesses with deep pockets to challenge the democratic decisions of our Scottish Parliament.
Clause 48 reserves state aid: one of the most blatant power grabs in the Bill, and that is a very high bar. We know that the state aid provisions will merely mirror those of the World Trade Organisation. That will inevitably make a deal with the EU even more difficult and provide little or no scrutiny. Finally, there is clause 46: the ultimate insult and the ultimate attack on devolution. If this legislation is forced through, powers will be given to UK Government Ministers to design and impose replacements for EU spending programmes in devolved areas: infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, education and training—all of it.
The Government’s agenda is clear. The Transport Minister would have input and decision-making powers over road building in Scotland, over the heads of the Scottish Parliament. We won a referendum in 1997, when 75% of the people of Scotland voted to have a Parliament. We have elections every five years. Manifestos are put in front of the Scottish people. It is the settled will of the people that that Parliament has control over health, education, housing and transport. How dare this Tory Government feel that they can come in and impose their will on those areas of democratic accountability in Scotland? What an insult to our Parliament in Edinburgh and our Parliament in Wales. I say to this Government, “We will stand up against this attack on our Parliament, and on those that enshrined that Scottish Parliament.”
The agenda of the Conservatives is clear. The Tories will seek to bypass democratically elected MPs and Ministers in Scotland. Union Jack-badged projects will be paid for and prioritised ahead of the priorities of our Parliament. Bitter experience is a good teacher. Tory Governments cannot be trusted to spend money in Scotland.
We remember what happens when the Tories control state aid spending. In 1992, John Major’s Government diverted cash from the highlands to try to boost dwindling Tory support in south-east England. And we have not forgotten that this legislation comes from a Prime Minister who bragged that a pound spent in Croydon has far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde. That is the way that the Conservatives look upon Scotland. The Tories will look after their own interests. They will never—not ever—support Scotland’s interests. This Bill would allow them free rein to serve their own narrow needs.
At its heart, this Bill confirms the centralising obsession of this UK Government. Those in No. 10 who not so long ago made a lucrative living scribbling endless newspaper articles about a supposed centralised Brussels elite are now attempting to centralise and grab every devolved power that they can get their hands on. Apparently, the Tories are not only determined to preside over the death of devolution; they are clearly determined to oversee the death of irony, too.
The real reason behind this Government’s hunger to pursue this power grab is what should concern us most, though. Paragraph 26 of the explanatory notes makes it clear that the Business Secretary will be given the power to change exemptions from the Bill at any time. In effect, this is a Trojan horse allowing Tory Ministers to encroach even further on devolution, and we know where that will inevitably lead. In order to deliver bad trade deals—the only deals they can now realistically get—the Tories want private health companies to have a guaranteed right to trade unhindered in Scotland and across the UK. With no protections for our Parliament, this would fundamentally weaken and undermine our national health service in Scotland. The same is true for private water companies, with the same threat of undermining standards and raising prices in Scotland. The Tories’ real agenda is about imposing the creeping privatisation and rampant deregulation that they are already implementing in England.
I am heartened by one thing: the scale of the threat of this legislation is equalled by the scale of the opposition with which it has been met across Scottish society. Those on the Government Benches, especially the Scottish Tories—mind you, there is only one of them in here—would do well to listen to this. The National Farmers Union Scotland confirmed that
“the proposals pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolution.”
The chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Yvonne White, expressed fear that
“the proposed legislation will lead to a race to the bottom, threatening our high standards in food, environment and animal welfare, thus damaging the image of Scottish produce.”
She concluded:
“These standards are best safeguarded by the Scottish Parliament.”
[Interruption.] I hear someone shouting from a sedentary position, “Don’t let the facts get in the way.” That is a statement from the chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation. It might not suit those on the Tory Benches, but that is the reality.
The Scottish Council for Development and Industry believes that
“mutually agreed common frameworks should be the foundation of the UK internal market, rather than the imposition of a single approach across the UK in devolved policy areas.”
The SCDI is absolutely right. Why is the Joint Ministerial Committee not finishing the work it was engaged on in delivering those frameworks on a consensual basis? But of course that does not suit the Tory Government, who want to attack our democratic institutions.
The General Teaching Council for Scotland said that supporting the Bill
“would undermine the four UK nations’ devolved education functions.”
Ian Blackford
I hear the Cabinet Office Minister shout, “How?” Perhaps he should go and talk to the General Teaching Council, and it will give him its views directly. [Interruption.] Really? We have the Business Secretary, who is supposed to be taking this Bill through, sitting laughing—laughing at the legitimate comments made by stakeholders in Scotland. It is little wonder that the Tories are rejected in the way they are at the polls in Scotland.
On its impact on devolution, Professor Nicola McEwen, co-director of the Centre on Constitutional Change, found that the internal market Bill
“limits policy divergences and risks stifling innovation”.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress stated that the Prime Minister
“is uniting political parties, trade unions and wider civil society in Scotland against a power grab which would see UK Government interference in previously devolved matters and a rolling back of the”
devolution
“settlement we voted for in 1997”.
What is happening is that the Tories are uniting civic Scotland against this attack on our Parliament and its powers—farmers, crofters, teachers, industry, academics and trade unions: a coalition of opposition to this Bill and this Tory agenda. Civic Scotland has made its voices and views crystal clear. Anyone supporting this Bill will be ignoring their interests.
We all have a responsibility to listen to these voices. The new Scottish Tory leadership have been running around half the summer, telling anyone who would listen just how keen they were to stand up to the Prime Minister when they think he is wrong. Well, you have that chance tonight. Listen to the coalition of opposition in Scotland rather than your masters in Downing Street. If the Scottish Tories follow their colleagues into the Lobby in support of this power grab, they will expose themselves as being weaker than ever, as failing to stand up for Scotland’s interest against a London power grab. The very first test of the new Scottish Tory leadership will have turned out to be their biggest, and they will have failed. They will simply have shown themselves to be the Prime Minister’s poodles, turning their back on Scotland’s interests. They will have failed once again to stand up for Scottish democracy.
There is also a special responsibility that falls on the Labour party. Much of the devolution project is a legacy of its Government in 1997. This Bill is a direct attack on that legacy. We must collectively oppose the Bill. I am urging the Labour party at every parliamentary stage to take full responsibility and work collectively with us to hold the Government to account. The Welsh Labour Government are advising the same. They have said that
“the UK Government plans to sacrifice the future of the union by stealing powers from devolved administrations”,
and that it is
“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”
That statement and its analysis comes to the very core of the argument. Over the course of the last 21 years of devolution, Scotland’s people have benefited from the progressive and divergent priorities that our own governance has given us the freedom to pursue. They have seen it, experienced it and come to fiercely value it. Even with limited powers, Scotland’s Parliament and our Government have always sought to mitigate or reject the Conservative policy paths set out at Westminster. We have forged our own path. If this legislation had been in force previously, it would have prevented many progressive policies and divergent choices.
Over recent months, that conviction and belief in our Parliament has grown. People have seen the exceptional leadership of our First Minister throughout the course of this terrible pandemic. It has reaffirmed their faith and confidence in our institutions, our governance and our nation. Our people have come to a simple but powerful conclusion: decisions about Scotland are best made in Scotland. Right now, poll after poll—the latest one only last Friday—shows that a growing majority have come to the conclusion that all decisions and all powers should now be fully entrusted to the people of Scotland.
The Tories have never been able to reconcile themselves to that truth. As usual, when they are confronted with change, they are in the depths of denial. Instead of accepting the right of Scottish people to choose their own future, they are trying to grab the powers back that were returned to Scotland 21 years ago. That is exactly what this law is designed to do. It is a full-frontal attack on Scotland’s Parliament and on Scotland’s democracy.
It has been stated that power devolved is power retained. This implies that this Tory Government can do anything they like with the powers of our Parliament. That is what this Bill is about. It gives them direct spending in Scotland in devolved areas: in health, education, housing and transport. Just dwell on this. We send parliamentarians to Holyrood so that they can enact the people’s priorities, but Westminster is about to ride roughshod over that. If the Bill passes, this Government in London can interfere directly in all those devolved areas, over the heads of the Scottish Parliament and our people. There is only one way to stop them—only one answer, and only one option.
The only way to defend Scotland’s Parliament and its powers is by becoming independent. Our Parliament will consider a new referendum Bill before the end of 2021. The chance to choose an independent future is now coming. No amount of Tory denial and disruption can stand in the way of Scotland’s people’s democratic right to choose a different and better future, and once it comes, people will have their democratic say. I am more confident than ever that they will choose to be part of a new Scotland back at the heart of Europe. We can choose to leave behind the chaos and instability of Westminster. We can get on by becoming an independent, international, law-abiding nation.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I will endeavour to prove that the best advocacy can be the most concise.
There is a great deal in the Bill that I support and that is necessary, sensible and desirable. However, there is one important part of the Bill that creates very real difficulty for me and many others, and I want to go straight to the rub of that point. Part 5 of the Bill, as it stands, gives me real concern as to its leading the United Kingdom into a breach of our international obligations and the law that stems from them. That is, as many others have observed, not something that any country should do, save in the most extreme and pressing circumstances.
The difficulty arises in relation particularly to clauses 42, 43 and 45. They are different from the rest of the Bill, because they give very wide-ranging powers indeed to Ministers to disapply elements of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, which have the force of international law, by regulation. These are measures of a very sweeping kind, involving any kind of legislation and any part of the agreement, not just those related to the protocol, and appearing to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in any respect. I question whether their being so wide can be justified.
My other concern is that the way the clauses are phrased at the moment runs the risk of bringing us into breach of our legal obligations before it is necessary. I heard what the Prime Minister said about an insurance policy, and I heard what the Lord Chancellor has said about a “break the glass in emergency” provision. That is fine, but it seems clear from the protocol that there are steps that must be gone through first and exhausted before that can properly be done. The most important part to bear in mind is that if article 45 is brought into force immediately after Royal Assent, we would at that point have disapplied the concept of the direct effect of European law, which is part of the agreement we signed up to and which this House passed less than a year ago. So bringing it into force on Royal Assent is needlessly provocative to our negotiations and needlessly undermines our reputation for sticking to the rule of law.
There are also provisions that bind us to act to resolve disputes only through the arbitration process, which is set out in the withdrawal agreement. Article 168, which we have signed up to, states that
“the Union and the United Kingdom shall only have recourse to the procedures provided for in this Agreement.”
There are detailed procedures and timelines for that.
It seems to me that we should be very careful about moving forward with bringing these clauses into force until every opportunity to resolve any dispute has been carried out through the arbitral mechanisms. Only then, and if it is necessary because the EU has not responded to a result of the arbitral mechanism—
Jeremy Wright
Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that should give us some optimism about the use of the mechanisms that he is describing is the specific references to the defence of the Good Friday agreement and of Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom in the protocol and the withdrawal agreement themselves?
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is, I think, the best approach for us to take. We should stick to the letter of those provisions, as that gives proper defence of our strategic interests. For example, there is the safeguard provision in article 16, which would enable us to act if, in extremis, the stability of the situation in Northern Ireland and the Union was threatened, but we could do that while maintaining the moral high ground and our intellectual reputation. I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is listening. I hope that he will be able to go further than the Prime Minister, either tonight or in the course of debates on the Bill, and assure us that those provisions will not be brought into effect unless and until every one of the legal mechanisms open to us has been exhausted and unless and until there has been a specific vote of this House—not by a statutory instrument, which does not give enough scrutiny for such a constitutionally significant issue, but by a specific resolution. That is why my amendment seeks to give the Government an opportunity to have that “break the glass in emergency” provision, but without our triggering a breach of the international legal obligations before it is absolutely necessary.
Steve Brine
Further to that, does my hon. Friend not agree that, while there will be some who are still on the, shall we say, Blair end of the argument, notwithstanding what he says, that position would be seen by the majority of people as being a reasonable one for us to take in this Act before we enact the nuclear button that is so often talked about? Would that not be reasonable?
Sir Robert Neill
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I do hope that the Government will listen carefully to that. I want to be able to support the Bill. I cannot support it with these clauses in it as they are at the moment. I hope that we will take the opportunity to change and improve these clauses and the way in which they might operate so that we do not fall into a means of damaging our reputation. That is why I cannot support the Bill tonight. I hope that we will see amendments to change what I believe are the egregious, needless and potentially damaging elements of part 5 of the Bill. Unless there are those changes, I will have further difficulty in supporting the Bill. None the less, having listened to what the Prime Minister has said, I want to give the Government that chance in a constructive spirit, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is listening carefully to that.
I do hope that the Government recognise that to act in a way that unilaterally breaches our international obligations is wholly against the spirit of what this country stands for. It is against the spirit, I think, of the party that he and I have always adhered to as a party of the rule of law, and we need to find a constructive means of making sure that we meet our obligations to the Union, but without undermining our obligations to the rule of law. I do not believe that is impossible with good will.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I have to say, from listening to the Prime Minister and watching the growing dissent on the Government Benches and in the Conservative party, that there is a moral here. The first moral is: read stuff before you sign it. The second moral is: do not go around telling the world that the United Kingdom cannot be trusted to keep its word.
On exit summary declarations—the Prime Minister said there were three issues—I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Government’s argument: exit summary declarations should not be required for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. When Wrightbus sells one of its wonderful buses to a transport operator in the UK, why is the form needed and what is the EU going to do with the form? But is it really worth ruining our international reputation, running the risk of no trade deal with the European Union, and running the risk of no trade deal with the United States of America for the sake of an electronic form? On goods at risk, surely it is possible to reach a pragmatic solution, because a lorry load of goods destined for a supermarket in Belfast can hardly be described as being at risk of entering the European Union. I would say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it would be helpful for everybody if he was not quite so secretive—and I use that phrase—about what goes on in the Joint Committee. Every time I have asked in the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, he has said, “Well, that’s a matter for the Joint Committee.” Well, I know it is a matter for the Joint Committee, but we would like to know, as the House of Commons, how things are going.
On the question of east-west trade, the Government knew from the start that there would be checks and controls, and that tariffs might be paid in certain circumstances. The Prime Minister then cranked up the blockade threat, even though, as the House will be aware, the Irish Foreign Minister has described that threat as “totally bogus”. By the way, I think it would help if the EU just said now, “Of course we’re going to give third-country listing to the United Kingdom.”
If the Prime Minister actually believes the threat of blockade, why did he then say that there is nothing in the Bill to do anything about it? Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in responding to the debate, give us an assurance that the Government do not intend to bring in another bit of legislation breaching international law? If the Government are looking for a remedy, a safeguard or an insurance policy, they should look to the protocol they have already negotiated, and in his brilliant speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) drew attention to article 16. I say to Ministers, use the process to resolve these questions, and do not break international law.
The final point I want to make is that this is a terrible diversion from the task at hand. We have less than four months to go, and the livelihoods of many businesses in this country depend on getting a deal with the European Union. For a long time I thought the Government would get one, but in the last few days I have begun to doubt whether they actually want one, because they seem to be acting in a way that undermines the prospect of an agreement.
I say to the Minister that it would be utterly irresponsible to head towards a lack of agreement that would damage sectors of the British economy. The Prime Minister read out the tariffs that he says would be charged on goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland. Those are exactly the same tariffs that would be charged to businesses in Great Britain if we do not get an agreement with the European Union. It is no good everybody on the Conservative Benches saying, “Isn’t that shocking?” if we end up with no agreement at all, and it would be utterly irresponsible to add to the pain caused by covid. For the Prime Minister to describe tariffs as a good outcome, frankly, leaves me perplexed.
Frankly, both sides should stop posturing, both sides should get back to their job and both sides should now negotiate through all of these questions, compromising as they need to, to get an agreement that, ultimately, would benefit the people of the UK and the EU.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
In the limited time that, unfortunately, is available to us, I want to focus on the protection of the UK market and on the enhanced powers that this Bill will give to UK Ministers to act in UK nations. Without this Bill, the way in which businesses trade and interact could be at risk. There is a realistic potential that the marketplace could become chaotic. We all recognise—
Alun Cairns
If the hon. Member gives me a moment, I will continue the argument and he can make an intervention later if he wishes.
We all recognise the status of the EU single market, which is something many of us will have championed and questioned in equal measure over the years. Rarely have we commented, however, on the UK market, yet the single UK market is more important and directly relevant to the businesses in each and every constituency across the country. It gives us the right to trade freely and seamlessly in all parts of the UK. It sets minimum standards for products and services—a common rulebook for tradespeople to work from. It allows for the mobility and flexibility of labour, protects against unfair subsidies and enables the recognition of qualifications, confirming free and fair competition and opportunity wherever people are based in the United Kingdom. It is so important to our prosperity and so obvious that until now many people will have taken it for granted, which is why we need to act in this Bill.
Over the last six months, we have seen that the agendas of each Administration around the UK are not always in line, and therefore the potential to create chaos in the marketplace exists. Protecting the interests of businesses and consumers in all parts of the country must be our priority, and that is exactly what the Bill does. It does so in a way that also respects and supports devolution by enhancing the devolved Administrations by extending their powers still further.
I am particularly encouraged and grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has included clause 46 in part 6. It is particularly welcome: it enhances the powers of UK Ministers to act and to be relevant in UK nations. That is essential for the future of the Union, and to my mind it is the start of the Union fightback. It shows that Whitehall now understands the changing nature of our make-up as a United Kingdom.
Since devolution, UK Ministers have been prevented from acting directly in support of businesses, charities or authorities in UK nations. UK-scale investment projects have always been difficult to achieve since devolution. Every Secretary of State has been frustrated by that, partly because of the devolved settlement and the limitations that it has put in place. After all, for someone who is unemployed and living in one of the poorest communities, which may have substandard education and limited training opportunities, in a run-down town or village, at this point the UK Government’s answer to calls for help would have to be, “You need to contact your Assembly Member or the Welsh Government Minister.”
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but I have been asking for money to make good the problems that we have had with flooding in the Rhondda all this year; I have not had a single penny out of the Westminster Government for it. I have been calling for the work that needs to be done in the Rhondda to take away the 60,000 tonnes of material that has fallen into the river from tips, which are a responsibility of the UK Government, to be funded by the UK Government; I have not seen a penny. I am not going to listen to all this nonsense of pretending that they are going to send us money—it is a whole load of tosh.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Member has made my point. He recognises that the areas of policy that he is talking about are devolved: the capacity of the UK Government to act in those spaces does not exist, as it stands. He recognises that the devolved settlement already gives Wales, or the Welsh Government, £120 for every £100 spent in England, so the answer that I might suggest is: I am sorry, but the hon. Member will have to contact the Welsh Government Minister to act in his constituency.
When people live in the circumstances that I have described, they do not care where the help comes from; they just want the Government to give hope and opportunity, and to play a part in bringing about change. The Bill allows for exactly that. I have long argued that the future of any nation would come under pressure if a wide wealth gap continued to persist between nations and regions. The Prime Minister’s levelling up agenda recognises that, and this Bill empowers that levelling up agenda in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in Wales.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The warnings that my party gave about the withdrawal agreement when it was discussed at the end of last year are now coming home to the Government. They are beginning to realise the impact that it had; indeed, they are beginning to admit what their own assessment said: that the withdrawal agreement would reduce trade and business investment in Northern Ireland, affect consumer spending and have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. If the Bill is an attempt to undo some of the damage done by the withdrawal agreement and respond to the points that Arlene Foster and other Ministers have pressed the Government to address, we welcome it. However, I have to say that it does not go the whole way or address all the issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, those who are criticising the Government about the non-implementation of the withdrawal agreement ought to know that only on Friday the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs overrode the Northern Ireland Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister and instructed civil servants in Northern Ireland to put up border posts and put in a proposal for border posts, even though all the information about what would be necessary had not been accepted.
Two arguments have been made against the Bill. The first is that it goes against the Good Friday agreement. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a Bill that prevents businesses in Northern Ireland from being able to sell goods freely in the rest of the UK is going to bring about violence in Northern Ireland. For the life of me, I do not understand why a decision that will enable businesses in Northern Ireland to bring goods from GB without paying unnecessary taxes, which they then have to claim back at some future time, is going to affect peace in Northern Ireland. The argument about the Good Friday agreement and violence in Northern Ireland is always rolled out when the arguments are weak against what the Government are doing.
The second argument is that the Government are reneging on their international obligations. The obligations in the withdrawal agreement are two-sided. There is a requirement for both the EU and the UK Government to act in good faith and with best endeavours to ensure that there is unfettered access and unfettered markets within the UK between Northern Ireland and GB, and to ensure that the Government of the United Kingdom have the ability to rule their own country and to make laws that affect their own country. Even a casual observer would see that the tactics of the EU and the comments that have been made by the negotiators make it quite clear that there has been no good faith and no best endeavours from the EU in these negotiations. In those circumstances, the withdrawal agreement allows the UK Government to act unilaterally.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that we have obligations to the rule of law and obligations to the EU. What about the obligations to the people of the United Kingdom to ensure the provisions of the Act of Union? The economic basis of the Act of Union makes it quite clear that there shall be no barriers on trade between different parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that the Government are fulfilling, in part, their obligations to the people of Northern Ireland in this Bill, and that is why we will support it tonight.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who served with me on the Brexit Committee in the previous Parliament and had great insight and passion for this cause. He is absolutely right in saying that the Government were warned about the dangers involved in the Irish protocol. Indeed, many members of the Committee pointed that out, but he was foremost among them.
Having listened to the Prime Minister’s cogent analysis of where we are, I can see why we have this Bill before us, because what he really said is that the EU is not complying with its duty under EU law of sincere co-operation, which it still has until the end of December. By not sincerely co-operating, it is forcing the Government to anticipate what ghastly things might happen. They are very wise so to do, because of course the European Union has form in all this. As Charles Moore said in a recent article in The Daily Telegraph:
“The breaking of international law is a sport at which the EU itself often excels.”
I want to remind the House of an episode not referred to in Charles Moore’s article but based on my experience when I was chairman of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Members will recall that the European Union agreed under article 6(2) of the treaty of Lisbon that it would accede to the European convention on human rights. Has it done so? No, it has not. It is in breach of international law. It is showing that it does not respect the rule of law. What is its defence? Its defence is its own interpretation of an obscure protocol attached to the Lisbon treaty—protocol No. 8. The European Union’s interpretation is not the interpretation that normal people would put on those words, but it got the support of the European Court of Justice—its own tame Court of Justice—to say that it would be incompatible with the European treaties for the European Union to accede to the European convention on human rights, which it had already decided to do during a prolonged negotiation in the preparation for the treaty.
Where are we now? We are in a situation where the Council of Europe’s parliamentary committee, the Council of Europe itself, and the European Parliament are trying to negotiate a way round this issue. In so doing, they are trying to exercise common sense and good will, because they recognise that the EU argument is essentially one of sovereignty. The EU is saying, “We do not want to subordinate our sovereignty to the European convention on human rights.” The argument in the Bill is that if the EU carries out all its threats, it will destroy the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and deprive us of the opportunity to administer for the whole United Kingdom with internal trade arrangements. If one is sympathetic to the idea that we should negotiate things with common sense and good will, that applies to the EU accession to the European convention on human rights, as well as to where we go from here to ensure that we get the full Brexit for which the people voted.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The focus of today’s debate ought to have been on the functioning of the internal market, and the legitimate role that the devolved Administrations play in our Union. That is what business needs from us today. Instead, we are having to call out this ludicrous suggestion from the Government that the only way to secure a Brexit deal, which we were told was oven-ready, is to breach international law and damage Britain’s standing in the world. We are told that that is okay because it is merely an insurance policy, but we all know that if the current Bill is passed, we will already have breached our legal obligations and caused damage to our standing and reputation in the world, irrespective of whether or not those powers are used.
When summing up the debate, perhaps the Minister can tell the House why, if those protections are so important, they were not negotiated in the first place and included in the withdrawal agreement, before the Prime Minister signed it. This behaviour does us no favours in our negotiations with the European Union, or with any other country around the world, and such facts mean that we must instead conclude that the Government are merely playing politics with British jobs and British business.
Just as in negotiations to update the North American Free Trade Agreement, where President Trump threatened to walk away without a deal unless he got what he wanted, it seems the Prime Minister has adopted a similar strategy. In playing such a reckless game in these negotiations, we risk failing to secure a trade agreement not only with the EU but with the US, where as we have heard, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that Congress would not pass any trade agreement that undermines the Good Friday Agreement, and rightly so.
I am at a loss to understand what the Government are seeking to achieve by acting so irresponsibly. Today we are left merely with the opportunity to appeal to the consciences of Members of the House about the constitutional importance that Parliament plays in such a situation. It is this Parliament that is sovereign, not the Government, and that places a personal obligation on each and every one of us, which we sign up to when we take our parliamentary oath. We are the check and balance on an irresponsible Executive.
Such disregard for the rule of law by the Government is perhaps not surprising in context of their disregard for the institutions of our country, from the courts to the civil service, and indeed this Parliament. This is but an obvious extension to this Prime Minister’s approach to governing, and as a member of the Opposition, I gently say, with the greatest of respect, that such reckless disregard for our institutions, for what it means to be British, for how we expect Britain to be governed, and for our aspirations for Britain’s role in the world, is also not very Conservative.
We have already heard the verdict of three Conservative Prime Ministers. Can Members imagine for one second what Mrs Thatcher would say from that Dispatch Box in these circumstances? [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that Mrs Thatcher would not have agreed to breaching international obligations and the rule of law, because of the way that it weakens our standing in the world and our negotiations with the European Union. Conservative Members may wish to look to the Republican party to see where that goes if we fail to stand up to it.
On the substance of the Bill, on the constitutional obligations on us all, which we should take seriously and not with humour, in the national interest and—dare I say it—in the interests of Conservative Members regarding their own party’s standing, I hope that they will join Opposition Members in voting down the Bill this evening.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I welcome the Bill as a reasonable and essential step for our Government to take in the light of the EU’s unreasonable position. It has become crystal clear, ever since our country voted to leave, that the EU would not act in a constructive spirit and would not treat the UK as an independent country with equal basis in the negotiations, as it has with other countries such as Canada. Despite this country’s decision to say no to the project of ever closer integration, which was reinforced by last year’s general election result, Brussels has continually attempted to trap us in its orbit. The British people will never accept the status of a vassal state, despite the arrogant efforts of Mr Barnier—just look at his Twitter feed as evidence.
The Bill is a reasonable step for any Government to take to maintain their sovereignty. It upholds the principle of article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol and without it, trade across the Union of nations would be severely limited. In the light of the EU’s continued resistance to a mutually beneficial free trade agreement, no deal will be our only available option. The Bill makes provision for that. Otherwise, Northern Ireland would remain subject to the EU’s customs laws and large portions of its internal market laws, all enforced by the EU’s Court of Justice.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has put her finger right on the issue that affects Northern Ireland: under the protocol, Northern Ireland goods will be subject to import declarations, entry summary declarations, safety and security certificates, export health certificates, phytosanitary certificates and certificates of origin. The Bill, thankfully at last, clears up that we will have a Union without paperwork.
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank the hon. Gentleman—a true patriot, putting our country’s interest above the EU’s.
EU rules on state aid would allow the EU to impose its state aid regime on any UK domestic policy. That is not reasonable. We chose to say no to further integration in 2016. Four years on, our friends in Brussels have not understood that. While we are happy to trade freely with them, we do not want to be ruled by the ECJ, we want our fishermen to have full access to our waters, and we do not want our future to still be determined by unelected EU bureaucrats.
The Bill is reasonable in solving those problems and it is essential in upholding the international obligation of the Good Friday agreement. It is essential that great effort is made to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the mainland of Britain. We have seen time and again the naked political considerations—most of the EU’s desire is to see our country fail. That is hardly an example of negotiating in good faith, and it is that that has determined and dictated the EU’s negotiating position. The Government had no option but to introduce this Bill.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In a “specific and limited way” is how the Prime Minister uses the words integrity and good faith. When the Bill was launched, an establishment newspaper in Scotland called it a day of national shame and infamy. It was right. With malice aforethought, the UK Government are breaking international law and breaking devolution. We reject the Bill and will never support legislation that breaks international law.
The Bill clearly threatens food and environmental standards, and opens up a race to the bottom in all aspects of life in Scotland, from the water we drink to education and health. It leaves our businesses uncertain and wary. It is no wonder that in Scotland, poll after poll shows that it is now the majority view that independence is not only the way to ensure the needs of the people of Scotland are delivered, but the only way to protect the Scottish Parliament. The Bill is emblematic of a Government with no regard for, or will to work with, devolution. It is a bare-faced power grab. The Scottish Tory leader has boasted that he will vote for the Bill tonight. In his other job, he runs the line; in this job, he crosses the line.
Clause 46 completely undermines the devolution settlement by stripping spending powers away undemocratically from the Scottish Parliament, jeopardising the current Barnett funding levels. We know only too well, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the consequences of allowing Tory Governments control of our spending, from when the highlands lost out to shore up votes in the south of England.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Is it not a fact that over a 10-year period the Scottish block grant has been cut by the Conservative Government, and these measures give free rein for the UK Government to make further cuts to the Scottish block grant and to impose their spending in Scotland, such as through this stupid Boris Brexit that nobody wants?
Drew Hendry
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The people of Scotland are wise to these tricks and can see the utter contempt that this Tory Government have for their needs. Their Parliament will once again be ignored, in spite of that Parliament voting 92 to 31 against the White Paper for this Bill. The response of this Tory Government is as self-defeating as it is petty and harmful. Do not take my word for it. As the House has heard, the National Farmers Union, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the STUC, the Welsh Government and even the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee have all agreed that this is a power grab.
The threat to environmental standards is palpable. Clauses 2 to 9 contain sweeping powers to compel Scotland to accept lower standards set elsewhere in the UK on animal welfare, food safety protections and a host of other elements with a direct impact on people’s lives. When directly challenged only yesterday, a UK Government Minister refused to rule out that we will have to accept chlorinated chicken in our shops. Imported hormone-injected beef can and will undercut our farmers and their quality production. Building control standards will be affected. Private companies will be able to trade unhindered to weaken and undermine our NHS and publicly owned water company—lowering standards, raising prices and undermining health.
This Tory Government are determined to break international law. This is proof to all looking on that they will break any boundary, concerned only with their own dogma. They do not want to work with others; they are not interested. Any real co-operation and consultation is anathema to them. They are a Government petulantly demanding compliance. Any deal, understanding, commitment, promise or even legally binding treaty is disposable. The common good is of no concern, especially when it gets in the way. Trust, honour and obligation are now words to trade on and be sneered at. What other inconvenient laws are next? Where does this stop?
Finally, what is the Government’s answer to the concerns of the Scottish people, businesses and communities to the poll after poll after poll showing that independence is now the majority view—not more powers or any attempt at understanding, but a pre-meditated move to put devolution to the sword? Madam Deputy Speaker, you bet we will be voting against this affront to Scotland and democracy tonight.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I cannot go all the way with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I am afraid, and I do think his remarks were well over the top.
It is important that we have measures in place to run the UK internal market so I support that aspect of the Bill. However, I do have concerns about part 5, because for our country to break its word and breach international law is just not something that we do. I will speak a bit further about that if I have time, but let me just say that I was surprised to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland justify this with the alleged precedent of the general anti-abuse rule set out in the Finance Act 2013. I was a Law Officer at the time and Dominic Grieve was Attorney General, and one thing I can say about Dominic Grieve is that he was very correct and extremely painstaking, and he made sure that Government legislation did not offend the rule of law. That Act did not breach Britain’s treaty obligations. That was made clear by Ministers at the time and I cannot recall anyone arguing that it did. It had the support of the OECD and the countries with which Britain had tax treaties. It was written after a review led by our leading tax QC Graham Aaronson to ensure that it was focused properly and was in line with our tax treaties. There was full consultation. Since it was passed, it has not been attacked as being in breach of treaty obligations, and the wording of that Act simply confirms the agreed legal situation. In fact, if it is an example of anything, it is an example of reaching agreement and doing things properly.
Britain stands as a rule of law country that is respected across the world for its stance. It is right that all three Prime Ministers I served under have come out with grave concerns about this Bill and the point I am concerned about. Margaret Thatcher herself—she was a barrister—made clear how important the point is, often saying that democracy is not enough without a love of liberty and respect for the rule of law. I am therefore hoping that the discussions going on at the moment can be successful. I am pressing the Government and the EU, as much as I can, saying, “Come on, let’s get an agreement”, because breaking international law would be the last thing we want to do.
I support the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), which says that if we come to the point where the negotiations have failed, all is lost and this country really must contemplate breaking international law, then so be it, but that day is not today and we should give the negotiations more time.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for many years. He laughed a little when I was talking about international law. I can remember him telling me once that we should leave the EU without any agreement at all. I do not know if he remembers that. He said we should ignore having any agreement, just repudiate everything and off we go. Personally, that is not my approach.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I have been a Member of this House for a good many years, but this is the worst piece of draft legislation that I have ever seen brought before us. It is a shabby and dishonourable piece of legislation, and I say that for two fundamental reasons.
My first objection to the Bill is that, if enacted, Ministers would have the ability to break international law, and the law would prevent there being a legal challenge to the use of those powers. Much of the debate so far has rightly focused on Northern Ireland, and I take seriously the potential threat to the Good Friday agreement but, importantly, the Bill also has far-reaching implications for all international obligations in this context. Those are not my words or those of the Opposition but the considered, objective and carefully expressed view of the House of Commons Library.
My second concern is that the Bill significantly undermines the devolution settlement for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in two important respects. First, the Bill states that the devolved nations will have to allow the sale of imported goods in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as agreed by the UK Government when they act solely for England, even if those imported goods did not meet quality standards, consumer protection levels or appropriate labelling agreed by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, there should be agreement whenever possible—that should apply right across the UK—but there is a very real danger of standards falling as the UK Government cobble together trade deals. The Bill facilitates that.
My second devolution objection relates to funding and state aid. When Britain was in the European Union, less well-off areas, such as south Wales, benefited substantially from EU structural funds, the European regional development fund and the social fund in particular. My constituency, like many others, benefited enormously. The Government have proposed a shared prosperity fund to replace the structural funds. The Bill gives a legal base for that fund, but significantly, the Bill gives exclusive power to the UK Parliament and the UK Government to decide where and how that money is spent. Previously, the devolved institutions had a real say in how European money was spent in their areas. What I think will happen is that resources will not go to poor areas—the areas of need—but will be allocated according to Tory central Government priorities. That is structurally and morally wrong.
Alun Cairns
Is the hon. Gentleman fully aware of the frustration among communities in Wales that so much money has been wasted over so many years of the highest level of European funds? That could be the funicular in Blaenau Gwent, which broke down within weeks of being completed and was never used again, or so many other projects elsewhere that I could highlight.
Wayne David
What I am aware of is that many communities across Wales are fed up of Tory cuts. Despite the difficulties that many areas have experienced because of central Government policy, they have seen the European Union offer some help, and the concern is that that help will now not be coming from a Tory Government. The help will go to areas that are already well off, which is morally and economically wrong.
That is why I conclude that this Bill is one of the worst pieces of draft legislation ever to be put before the House. It enshrines the possibility of illegality. It objects to international law as it is widely applicable. It rides roughshod over the devolution settlements. It opens the door for resources to be given to well-off areas, rather than being allocated on the basis of demonstrable need. It also undermines the international standing of this country in the eyes of the world.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
All through the Brexit debates and the referendum campaign, we were constantly reminded that we should do nothing at all to damage Northern Ireland, and particularly the economy in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with that advice, but as soon as the Government try to do something to protect Northern Ireland and the economy of Northern Ireland, we are told that we are wrong.
It has been interesting to listen to the speeches tonight. Members have quite rightly warned that we should not implement the Bill’s provisions before it is absolutely necessary. The logic of that argument is that they accept that it might, under certain circumstances, be necessary. Indeed, if one reads beyond the headlines of what was said by David Cameron, who has been quoted tonight, he goes on to say that these provisions should only be used as a last resort, therefore accepting that they may have to be used. I entirely agree with that—they should only be used as a last resort, and the Prime Minister was clear that that would be the case.
Ian Paisley
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He was a wonderful Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and he actually gets the situation in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that what really perturbs us about the opposition to the Bill tonight is people saying that it will somehow attack peace when what it does is remove the impediments to economic progress? It is through economic progress that we have created more jobs in Northern Ireland and helped to create peace in Northern Ireland.
Mr Robertson
My hon. Friend is wrong—or perhaps premature; I am not quite sure—to elevate me to the Privy Council, but he makes a very good point and leads me on to my next point.
Although north-south trade is extremely important to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Republic, east-west trade is far more important for both Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is not to say that the other is not important, of course. We should therefore do nothing to damage that trade.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the Act of Union. He did not have time to go into detail, but article sixth of the Act of Union 1800—the very Act that created this United Kingdom—states that
“in all treaties”
made by “his Majesty” as it was then, his heirs and successors,
“with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subjects.”
It goes on to refer to manufacturing, trade and navigation. That Act should not be breached. It may or may not have the legal status—whatever that is—of a treaty, but surely it is an international Act of Parliament, which brought two sovereign nations together. That should be respected.
Article 184 of the 2019 withdrawal agreement should be respected when it talks about the need for both sides to operate
“in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders”.
In other words, the United Kingdom’s legal order should be respected. Clause 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 asserts that
“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”
It is wrong for people to say that Ministers will run off with powers and act illegally—they would be given the powers by this Parliament if we pass the Bill. Ministers are therefore not running off and acting illegally at all. It is important that we deliver the Brexit that people voted for. I do not want a spat with the European Union and I have no reason to believe that it will behave so unreasonably as to deny all EU manufacturers and businesses—the people who send more than £90 billion of exports to this country, which is more than we send to them—trading opportunities.
I want a free trade agreement with the European Union because that would benefit businesses and people on the continent and in this country. It would also remove all the arguments that we are having tonight about the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, so I really do hope that we can make progress. That is the way forward. If there is bad faith, and if we are put to the test of deciding whether we support the United Kingdom or the European Union, then I remember the oaths that I have given on seven separate occasions in this House, and my loyalty will be to the United Kingdom.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
“I believe that these arrangements are in the interests of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. It is a great deal for our whole country.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2019; Vol. 669, c. 149.]
Not my words, but those of the Prime Minister. How can anybody trust the word of the Prime Minister when he does a deal not even a year ago and he comments on it in those terms, but now he is ripping up that agreement only a few months after he made it? How can any of us believe a word that comes out of his mouth? Last month, we lost Ireland’s greatest son, John Hume, the pathfinder for our peace, the creator of the Good Friday agreement. He understood what that agreement was about. We have been told by Ministers in this House and on the airwaves that we need this Bill to protect the Good Friday agreement. Two key principles of that agreement are that there will be no hard border in Ireland and that local people will make local decisions for local communities. This Bill rips up both those principles.
This is not just about trade. It is much more fundamental than that. We are not going backwards, despite what the Government or anybody else in this House will try to drag us back. We are refusing to go back to a place that caused so much hurt and so much pain, despite what anybody says. This Government knows nothing about the Good Friday agreement. Some prominent Members in this House opposed that very agreement. They have risked nothing for peace. They have not had to live with the violence, intimidation and division. John Hume spilled his sweat so that nobody else would have to spill their blood. This Government know nothing of that.
Of course, the DUP tonight are talking about the Good Friday agreement and interpreting it for us. They were standing outside the gates of Stormont when it was being negotiated, shouting and holding placards. How did that all work out?
The protocol is there to protect us from a hard border. That is why it is there. Without that protocol, the only thing we are being offered to protect us is the word of a man whose word can clearly not be trusted. Openly admitting that he is going to break international law by being prepared to break a deal that he just did with the European Union has consequences. People in this House need to remember that Ireland has very good friends in the United States. I want to thank former Vice-President Joe Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Richie Neal and Congressman Brendan Boyle for all that they have done to support our peace process and for all that they have said this week. They have been very clear: there will be no trade deal with the United States if this Government do violence to the Good Friday agreement or this protocol—no trade deal at all. It is not me saying that; it is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Speaker of the House of Congress and, potentially, the next President of the United States. That is the reality that we are risking with this Bill.
This may all turn out to be a dead cat, but let me tell the Government very clearly that every single day more and more people—people we would not even expect—are saying to me that this Union is very close to becoming a dead duck.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister has warned us that a threat has been made to interpret the agreement in such a way as to exclude the possibility of the people of Northern Ireland having access to goods from the rest of the United Kingdom—a threat that clearly shows that those who have made it have abandoned any notion of their binding obligation to negotiate in good faith and make best endeavours to secure an agreement. The Government would be utterly negligent if they were not to take precautions to prevent that from arising; it would be outrageous.
The Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), has said that the powers that the Government envisage arming themselves with should be used in only the most extreme circumstances. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that breaking up the economic integrity of the United Kingdom is just such a circumstance. This Bill is a precaution. It is a deterrent. The best way to prevent ourselves from being in the position of needing these powers is to arm ourselves with them.
There is a principle in international law, which is that no country can be bound by an obligation that it made when that obligation is interpreted in such a way as to undermine the very integrity of that country. That is a principle of international law, and there is only one court that can arbitrate in those circumstances. That is the court of international opinion, and the world can see exactly what is going on. The world has had its own dealings with the European Union and its negotiations. It has seen its infractions of the World Trade Organisation. It has seen what it has done over the European convention on human rights, and it knows what is going on.
There are those who have said that there is somehow a comparison to be made between the powers that we envisage in this Bill and what China is doing in Hong Kong. That is such a grotesque comparison as to undermine any argument that they might have.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I never thought I would ever see a piece of legislation this objectionable put before the House. It is a gigantic act of self-harm masquerading as a negotiating strategy in the EU-UK trade talks, as the flounder and the end of the transition period looms. It unilaterally repudiates the devyolution settlements and centralises power to the UK Government.
As currently drafted, this Bill will give Ministers the powers to disapply or unilaterally reinterpret parts of the Northern Ireland protocol and ignore their legal obligations in both domestic and international law to enact the protocol as it was negotiated. It asserts that these powers will be legally effective even though they break international law, thereby unilaterally repudiating the foundations of the withdrawal agreement, which was only enacted by the House earlier this year. The Bill orders the domestic courts to prioritise this new law over any existing international law we have signed up to and it attempts to preclude any prospect of judicial review.
It has already been admitted on the Floor of the House by a Cabinet Minister that the Bill breaks international law in a very “specific and limited way”. The reality is that this is a shocking repudiation of everything the UK holds dear. It threatens to destroy our hard-won reputation as an upholder of international law and as a country that can be trusted to keep its word. Once lost, that reputation will not be easy to regain. This is not only morally wrong—it is self-defeating and undermines the prospect of reaching a deal at all. It is a sign of just how dangerous the Government’s actions now are that all five living ex-Prime Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, have made public their opposition to this reckless course of action, as have the Brexiteer ex-leaders of the Conservative party, Lords Hague and Howard.
This morning, the Prime Minister’s first Lord Chancellor called the Bill “unconscionable” and revealed that he will not vote for it. Many legal experts argue that both the current Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General are in breach of their oaths of office and should resign. Last week, the head of the Government legal service did resign over the Bill because it breaks international law. Given that we have an unwritten constitution which relies on ministerial restraint and responsibility, the Bill is even more dangerous than it first appears. It unilaterally tears up treaty obligations made just months ago and makes it less likely that any of our future undertakings will be believed or trusted, just as we must renegotiate all our existing trading agreements with the rest of the world.
What are we to make of a Prime Minister who presides over this moral vacuum and this reckless gamble with our international reputation; the man who resigned over his predecessor’s deal, which had no Irish border, pronouncing it a betrayal and using it as his path to power in the Conservative party; the man who, nine short months ago, negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement, declaring it “fantastic”, and expelled from the Conservative party and Parliament all his own MPs who did not back it; the man who went to the country with this “oven-ready” Brexit deal and won a huge majority; the man who now believes it was rushed and flawed, and must be unilaterally written by him and him alone, the world king acting like a two-year-old having a tantrum because he did not get all he wanted; a Prime Minister who is completely careless of the consequences of his own actions; and the leader of a Government who think they can do what they want, purge who they want and act how they want, a Government who think there is one law for them and another for everyone else, repudiating treaties they have just signed and ignoring the lockdown rules they impose on everyone else?
This will not end well. The Government must step back from the brink, withdraw the lawbreaking clauses in the Bill, and think again.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Rarely can a few words uttered from the Government Dispatch Box have overshadowed a debate like this to such an extent or indeed caused so much instant fury and indignation, but I do not think the House should be in any doubt that the author of those words will have been delighted by the reaction they caused, and that the real purpose and significance of those words will probably prove to be much less than that. The law of this land and international law are both of great importance. I will leave that to the lawyers. The underlying question for the House to address is about where this nation now finds itself.
I support the Bill, because it will be necessary to address at least the worst aspects of the withdrawal agreement and protocol. We cannot be bound by it indefinitely or continue to accept laws imposed on our country by the EU court. At least there was a means of leaving the EU, but there is no obvious means of leaving this withdrawal agreement.
Much has been said about the potential to lose the respect of the international community, but what will other nations think if this great and sovereign nation cannot bring itself to accept that we made a mistake ratifying this agreement? [Interruption.] Some of us warned about it at the time. But the key points are these: the UK will gain respect if we extricate ourselves from the worst aspects of this agreement, which have the capacity to impose laws on our country with even less democratic legitimacy than under our previous membership of the EU.
Alan Brown
Is that now the measure of how we are going to go forward with international treaties: when countries change their minds, they say, “Oops, I made a mistake. We’ll forget about it.”?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think it is a matter to be done casually and without very great care, but, as many right hon. and hon. Members, even those objecting to this Bill, are now saying, if the worst comes to the worst, we may have to avail ourselves of these powers, because it is the obligation of this House, first and foremost, to stick up for our national interests.
The EU says it will act against the UK through the European Court, but there is something absurd about the EU attempting to impose its laws on a member state after it has left the bloc—when did the voters endorse that? There is something ironic, even bizarre, about MPs in this Parliament demanding that the EU should continue to impose its laws instead of themselves wanting to make the laws for their constituents—they still do not accept Brexit. One wonders whether the Government recognise better than many here how most voters will react to this. Most of those shouting the loudest now showed how little they understood the voters in the 2016 referendum. Voters will support a Government who are determined to resist the unreasonable enforcement of the withdrawal agreement by the EU. Today, the Government have a strong mandate and a secure Commons majority for taking back control of our laws—voters will expect no less than that and they will give little quarter to this Parliament if they are let down again.
We are in a process of constitutional transition, from being subordinated by the EU legal order towards the restoration of full independence. While we are in this penumbra period of mixed constitutional supremacies, it is unsurprising that this kind of controversy should arise. Our other allies and trading partners will have far more respect for the UK if we stand up for our interests in this way than they will if they watch us accepting that we are to remain indefinitely a non-member subsidiary of the EU. The Government must ensure that there will be a clear end to the jurisdiction of the EU Court; that is the test of whether we are taking back control of our own laws, and our democracy demands it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
What a self-made mess this Government find themselves in, and it was beautifully articulated by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). For three long years this Government struggled to get their withdrawal agreement through this place. So much time was spent on it that I doubt that there was a dot or comma of that agreement that was not known to the Government. In January, they signed a legally binding international treaty. The Prime Minister signed it and described it then as a “negotiating triumph”. Not only was it a negotiating triumph, but, as he told the electorate in December, it was “oven-ready” and good to go. He told the electorate, “Vote for me and I will get Brexit done”, and for reasons that I will never fathom, the people of England did. So in December, flushed with a huge majority, he led every single Tory MP through the Lobby to support his deal. However, the Government now want unilaterally to move the goalposts and renege on what they signed up to at the start of the year. In so doing, they are wilfully prepared to break international law, take the UK’s already diminished reputation further into the gutter and take a wrecking ball to the devolution settlement. Even for this Government that is quite an achievement.
Are Ministers asking us to believe that, despite three years of intense negotiation, they did not actually understand what they were voting for, and that they did not understand what their confidence and supply partners from the Democratic Unionist party were saying about differential arrangements between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? Are we to believe that they were unable to grasp the implications of their own Northern Ireland protocol—the one they designed with the EU to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland? It is not credible because it is not true.
Alan Brown
My hon. Friend makes a fine point: it is not credible and there has been bluff after bluff. Is it not the case that when the warnings were pointed out, Ministers stood at that Dispatch Box and said, “Don’t worry, we have a magic solution There won’t be any cameras or infrastructure at the border; technology will solve it all.”? We have technology that can control the movement of people and goods and deal with different customs arrangements”? Yet another bluff from an incompetent Government.
Brendan O’Hara
My hon. Friend hits the nail squarely on the head. That is absolutely true. They knew exactly what they were signing up to and exactly what they were voting on—a fact acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself, who said in April that the deal ensures that we can leave the EU, and it is “entirely consistent” with the Belfast agreement and all our other domestic and international obligations.
So, how did we get from the agreement being a negotiating triumph in January, and being entirely consistent with domestic and international obligations in April, to today, with a Government boasting that they will knowingly breach international law if they do not get their own way? I believe that, in short, it is because those at the heart of this Government have decided, in true Trumpian fashion, that the UK will no longer play by the rules. They have cynically done their sums and reckon they have the numbers to push this legislation through. It is the behaviour of a Government who have lost their moral compass—a Government who have been reduced to using the Good Friday agreement as a bargaining chip.
It is little wonder that the United Kingdom is fast becoming regarded as a bad-faith actor among the international community, where adherence to international law and the obligations that come with it are what sets us apart from rogue states and dictatorships. The irony of all this is that it emerged against the backdrop of the faux outrage about the last night of the proms and whether it was appropriate to play “Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!”; we know it is a case of Britannia waives the rules. It is not just now; it was ever thus. Ask the Irish and the people of India. Go to large swaths of Africa. Go anywhere that is still recovering from the wreckage of British colonialism and the people there will give chapter and verse about Britannia bending, breaking, inventing and waiving the rules all day long to suit its own ends. The world had hoped and probably half expected that those days were gone; sadly, they clearly are not.
For Scotland, it does not have to be this way: we have an escape route available to us—an escape route with independence that will take us back to the family of nations of the European Union, as a law-abiding European country on an equal footing with every other independent country. It is little wonder that opinion poll after opinion poll has shown a majority for independence. I confidently predict that tonight’s shenanigans will bring that independence closer and Scotland will become an equal member of the European Union, because that is the fast-approaching settled will of the Scottish people.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Just like the overwhelming majority of Members, I was returned to this House on the promise of getting Brexit done. I am an ardent supporter of Brexit and look forward eagerly to the opportunity to bolster the United Kingdom’s position by becoming an independent, self-governing nation, possessed of the confidence that flows from our vision and principled values.
Although I stand four-square behind the Government’s policies and objectives, including those advanced by the Bill, I cannot vote for legislation that a Cabinet Minister stated from the Dispatch Box will break international law. Before I was returned to this House, I spent many years in distant, sometimes dangerous places on behalf of our country, our closest friend, the United States, NATO and the UN, where I was committed to upholding the international rules-based system, which is the only shield we have against the law of the jungle. The rules-based system is, of course, one that the United Kingdom was proud to play a central role in building.
I have every sympathy with Her Majesty’s Government and place the responsibility for the impending denouement firmly with the EU, as it haughtily refuses to deal with the UK as a sovereign equal, like our sibling Canada. The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would provide an off-the-shelf trade deal with no bells and whistles, as Monsieur Barnier himself offered. That would have involved no more than a light-touch border between Britain and Ulster. The EU has moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for the United Kingdom, creating a much harder trade border in the Irish sea than Unionists supposed. It therefore intrudes ineluctably on the Belfast agreement.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman is making; they are important to the debate. Is he appalled by the suggestion that was made tonight from the Opposition Benches that we would invoke America to stop doing a trade deal with the United Kingdom just because of this? Is he appalled that someone in this Parliament would invoke America to do that? Is he appalled that someone would do it just to save little bits of paper between Northern Ireland and GB when doing trade? Is he not appalled by that? Because I am.
Imran Ahmad Khan
I am mildly surprised. I worked for some time for the Pentagon and the State Department, and I know the Americans very well. Like the United Kingdom, it is a nation built upon laws and it has representatives. The Americans know their national interest exceptionally well, and of course it is in the American national interest to have an expansive and ambitious free trade agreement with the United Kingdom, given our size and wealth.
It is not only certain Members of this House who make peculiar statements. I have no sympathy with the hysterical, hypocritical and hyperbolic statements from the EU, declaring that the UK uniquely will be in breach of its international commitments. Half the countries of the EU are in breach of their various treaty obligations. Germany and France both choose to deliberately breach their EU treaty commitments relating to budget deficit limits, and others are famous for being selective in deciding which rules to follow. However, the UK has always held itself to a higher standard. Our principles of fair play and freedom, underpinned by the rule of law, are who we are. They are part of our DNA, and must be protected. Our position of global leadership and permanent membership of the Security Council is derived not from being a victorious power but from our moral authority. Moral authority is hard earned and easily lost. Once damaged, it is difficult to repair.
Having consulted highly respected experts in international law, some of us have concluded that if the EU, in breach of its obligations to act in good faith and with best endeavours, were to employ the withdrawal agreement as a Trojan horse, this Bill, if enacted and employed, would not necessarily constitute a breach of our commitments, under either UK or international law. Rather, the Bill would then serve as a protection against the abuse of our good nature and a reminder to the Commission of its obligations.
Jim Shannon
There have also been other legal opinions sought, one of which was from Martin Howe QC. He refers to the alteration of the “constitutional status” of Northern Ireland that across-the-board tariffs on GB-to-Northern Ireland exports would entail, saying that this would be a breach of the core principle of the Good Friday agreement. He goes on to say:
“International law does not justify a later treaty to which these community representatives are not parties being used to over-ride the rights they enjoy under the earlier treaty”.
That is another legal opinion, and it might be very different from those sought by the hon. Gentleman.
Imran Ahmad Khan
My great problem with the Government’s position is the predicament in which they have placed people who share my view—I think the hon. Gentleman probably shares it too—because that view has been undermined, I am sad to say, by the assertion of a Government Minister that the Bill would represent a specific and limited breach of international law.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have been put in this situation only because the EU has not been playing with a straight bat? If the European Union played this straight and treated us as equals, we would not been in this situation. In fact, the fault for all this lies with the European Union for not treating us fairly.
Imran Ahmad Khan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in as much as the EU has not been playing with a straight bat, but I find it difficult to understand the statement, the motivation behind it or, indeed, the credibility of the comment, because I simply reject the notion that we would be in breach of our international obligations.
We have been placed in a predicament because of that statement that the Bill would represent a “specific and limited” breach of international law. Only if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his response to the debate, can provide assurances to the House that Her Majesty’s Government share my interpretation—our interpretation—that such powers, if enacted and employed, would not automatically constitute a breach of our legal obligations will I support the Bill.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
If any of my constituents are watching this afternoon, I think they will be wondering what on earth is going on. “Why,” they will ask, “are MPs banging on about Brexit again? Isn’t that what the general election last December was meant to end? Didn’t we leave the EU in January? Wasn’t there meant to be an oven-ready deal?” They will ask, “Is this really what you should be focused on today?”
Right now, some of those constituents will be sitting at home feeling ill, anxious that they might have coronavirus but unable to get a test. Or they will be trying to work from home while looking after their son or daughter, who cannot go to school because they have a cold—or maybe it is coronavirus, but they do not now because they cannot get a test. Or perhaps they are on furlough because the business they work for has not yet fully reopened, or has not got everyone back yet, and they are anxious about whether they will have a job when the coronavirus job retention scheme ends next month.
People who work for one of our east midlands manufacturing businesses will be especially worried about the Prime Minister’s bluff and bluster earlier today; they, more than anybody else, require us to secure a deal, because their jobs depend on it. All those people will be asking why we are arguing about Brexit again when the top priority should be tackling the pandemic that threatens lives and tackling the resulting economic crisis that threatens their livelihoods.
Agreeing a trade deal with the EU is vital, but the Government need to get on with it rather than making it more difficult with the sort of posturing that we have heard today. The protocol contains a mechanism for dealing with disputes. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself said that
“the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the Joint Committee to resolve.”
Surely they need to get back round the negotiating table, stop posturing and reach an agreement on how the protocol should operate.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am sorry that it is really politically inconvenient for Brexit to come back to this Chamber because it reminds people that it was the Labour party that turned its back on the verdict of the British people three or four years ago, but surely it is not surprising: when the transition period is about to come to an end, these debates will come back to the House. Does the hon. Lady not agree with me that it is good that we finally have a Prime Minister who is fighting for British interests?
Lilian Greenwood
I think my constituents will expect a little bit better than that. They will expect the Government to get on with the job that they promised to do. The Government said they were going to deliver a Brexit deal, they said they had it ready, and my constituents do not expect them now to say that they made a mistake—that somehow it was not what they expected.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
At the heart of it, is not the issue that this whole thing comes across as a giant piece of bluff and bluster by a failing Prime Minister? As my hon. Friend rightly hints at, this is a means to distract the public from other immediate pressures. To make matters worse, it damages our reputation in the eyes of the world at a time, as Members have correctly pointed out, when we need to seek a trade agreement not only with the EU but with a number of other countries.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The timing is very interesting. We are at a point when many people are looking at the Government and are extremely worried about their incompetence and the way they are dealing with the current health crisis. With today’s debate and the Prime Minister’s position, well, people will wonder what is going on.
People will be baffled because every time they have listened to the news, watched politics on TV or opened a paper in recent days, they will have seen a senior Conservative MP, or a former Tory Attorney General, Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressing grave concerns about the content of this Bill. Those concerns are not just from those who might be called “the usual suspects”—those who were remainers—because this is not about whether we leave the European Union. We have left. That argument is over. Their concern is that the Bill deliberately breaks international law, will prevent us from completing a deal with the EU in the very short time available to do so, and will have much wider ramifications for the future of our country. They are risking the UK’s reputation across the globe.
Many hon. Members have already asked how other countries, with whom we want and need to make trade deals, will trust a Prime Minister who, just a few short months after he negotiated and signed an agreement, now says that he intends to break its terms. We do not have to guess what they will think; we can see for ourselves the reaction from our friends and allies, including, as has already been said, from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. If the Prime Minister really considers that this deal contains serious problems that could break up our country, why did he sign it? Why did he claim it was a great success? Had he not read it, or did he not understand it?
Of course, the dangers of the Bill are not just about the UK’s ability to negotiate trade deals; they are about the UK’s reputation and its moral authority. How can our Government seek to uphold the rule of law if we break it ourselves? How can we hold other nations to account on their treaty obligations on international standards when we disregard our own?
Lilian Greenwood
I will not, because we are very short of time. Speaking to the House earlier, the Prime Minister claimed that the provisions of the Bill will be used only as a last resort, and sought to play down the problems that it poses but, as the House of Commons Library briefing states,
“the existence of the power to override a number of the UK’s international obligations may itself constitute a violation of international law.”
The very fact that it has been tabled is already undermining the reputation of this country, and damaging our relationships with those we need to reach deals with.
There are other concerns about this Bill: that it runs contrary to the devolution settlement; that it will enable a race to the bottom on standards; and that it undermines the rights of the devolved nations to set their own spending priorities. The Government should ensure free trade access across the UK. We need a strong internal market, but this Bill is not the way to do it. Unless it is amended, I cannot, and this Parliament should not, support it.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The majority of the Bill is sensible and necessary for an effective United Kingdom single market when we are no longer subject to EU rules. My issue, as for others, is clauses 42, 43 and 45, which take what was agreed less than a year ago about the primacy of the withdrawal agreement over domestic law and reverse it. They are not a clarification but a contradiction of that agreement, and the Government are very clear about this: doing that would be breaking international law.
I agree that it is possible to break international law without automatically breaking domestic law. It is also true that Parliament is sovereign, and it can choose to break international law if it wants to, but the fact that an international law breach is not a domestic law breach and is not unconstitutional does not make it a good idea. The blatant and unilateral breach of a treaty commitment could be justified only in the most extreme and persuasive circumstances. The Government say that such circumstances are those in which no ongoing trade arrangement is made with the EU and where the Joint Committee established under the withdrawal agreement to resolve problems of interpretation is unable to do so, leaving the UK in an impossible position.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
That is the nub of the argument, is it not? These are exceptional circumstances. We are about to negotiate by far the most important agreement that this country has reached for the last 40 years. In those highly dynamic circumstances it is right that this Parliament should give the Government sufficient flexibility to get the best possible deal for Britain. That is what this is about, and that is why we should support the Bill.
Jeremy Wright
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will address exactly that point and what the Government could be doing instead of what they are proposing to do. Let me say first that the possibility of reaching no trade agreement and of deadlock in the Joint Committee was foreseeable yet when the withdrawal agreement was signed, and again when it was legislated for, the Government did not say that the risk of the outcomes they rely upon now undermined the deal on offer; they said then and they say now that this was a good deal. So what has changed?
That leads to the argument to which my right hon. Friend refers: that, unexpectedly, the European Union is now adopting an interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol so outrageous and so far from a rational reading of that protocol that we could not have seen it coming and we could not possibly accept it, leaving no option but to abrogate ourselves the relevant parts of the protocol. But the withdrawal agreement sets out a mechanism for resolving disputes about interpretation, involving binding independent arbitration and penalties including the suspension of obligations under the agreement. If the EU’s new approach is so far from what the agreement intended, why would the Government not succeed in using that mechanism?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The answer is that any question in European law, under article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, has to be referred to the European Court of Justice, and the Court is acting not on behalf of the 28 as before, but on behalf of the 27. We know it is a political court.
Jeremy Wright
My right hon. Friend might be right to be sceptical about the Court of Justice of the European Union, but the issue likely to arise here is not a question of European Union law; it is a question whether there is compliance with the withdrawal agreement signed by both sides. That does not necessarily raise a question of European law; nor, in my view, is it likely to. It raises a question of treaty law and whether or not this is being abided by in good faith.
I accept that the Government have a problem, but I cannot accept that the proposed solution is either necessary or right. International law matters. The rules that bind nations underpin what the United Kingdom says on the world stage on a variety of subjects, from the Skripal poisonings to the treatment of the Uyghur people to the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We speak often, and rightly so, of the rules-based international order as the foundation of freedom and justice in the world and of our security. The rules referred to are, of course, rules of international law. If we break them ourselves, we weaken our authority to make the arguments that the world’s most vulnerable need us to make. Nor is it in our long-term diplomatic or commercial interests to erode the reputation we have earned for the strength of our word and our respect for the rule of law—a reputation that, ironically, we will rely on more than ever when the Brexit process is complete.
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or his Ministers wish to undermine that reputation, but I do believe that if Parliament were to give Ministers the powers they are asking for, and if they were to be exercised, we would all come to regret it. That is why I cannot vote for the clauses as they stand, or for a Bill that contains them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Sometimes a piece of legislation comes along that is just so audacious, pernicious and chaotic that it is difficult to comprehend the scale of the carnage it will deliver in its wake. This single market Bill is a prime example of that type of legislation. It is almost unbelievable. It is a Bill that only this Government, with their weird assortment of Brexiteer oddballs, would consider going anywhere near. In fact, it is almost perfect for them, given their penchant for governance by chaos and disorder.
Breaking international law? For this Govt, that is a trifling detail. They just do not care. For them, being a rogue state is as natural as leaving the EU without a deal, or illegally proroguing Parliament. They are even starting to tell us now that being a pariah state somehow enhances the UK’s international standing. We can imagine, in a few years’ time, the Foreign Secretary of rogue state UK turning up to the United Nations during an international crisis that threatens the world order involving, say, Iran or North Korea, or an international convention or treaty. What authority and credibility would rogue state UK have in that situation? Kim Jong-un would turn around and say, “I’m firing these missiles, but only in a limited and specific way.”
I want to confine my remarks to what this rotten Bill will do to my nation. If the Government want their rogue state, that is up to them. If they want their no-deal Brexit, go ahead, have it, we will wish you all the best, but do not bring down our beautiful nation in the process. Never before has there been such a sustained attack on our Parliament or our democracy. The invention and development of the idea of a UK single market has been one of the most spectacular and dishonest pieces of political chicanery we have witnessed in recent times. The barefaced nonsense of this being a power surge is contradicted by practically every detail of the Bill.
There are two areas I particularly want to touch on. One is what is included in clause 46—the one that allows the UK Government to legislate directly in devolved responsibilities. This mechanism is designed to bypass the Scottish Government. The Scottish Tories know that they will never come anywhere near governing Scotland, so what they will do is just get around the process. Even under the new leadership of the ever charming ray of sunshine that is the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), they are still going down in the polls, so what they need to do is circumvent Scottish democracy and ensure that they get direct control and access to specific interests when it comes to Scotland. That is what they are doing with this particular Bill.
The other thing is the Competition and Markets Authority. I remember listening to all those Brexiteer colleagues over there, when they used to rage against all the unelected bureaucrats—remember these mythical creatures of yore? Well, I found them—they are not sitting in an office in Brussels; they are sitting in the Cabinet Office. They are not called the European Commission; they are called the Competition and Markets Authority, and it is them that will arbitrate on everything to do with devolution and what the Scottish Government can and cannot do.
Ian Paisley
Did the hon. Member not oppose the Northern Ireland protocol because it discriminated against the needs of the people of Scotland? Now for some reason he seems to be taking to his hind feet, wanting to support the protocol and oppose the Bill that removes those pernicious aspects of the protocol. Why has he changed?
Pete Wishart
I think the hon. Gentleman may be confusing me with somebody else. I say ever so candidly to him that I did not oppose just parts of the Government’s EU Brexit—I opposed it in its totality, as did the people of Scotland. We opposed overwhelmingly the idea that we have to be taken out against our will.
This is what it is coming down to. In the next few months, the Scottish people have a critical decision to make about the type of future they want for their country. They could decide to remain part of rogue-state UK, with the Government’s no-deal Brexit and all the other things that they want to do, or they could simply decide that they want to become an independent country of their own, making their own decisions and their own way in the world, deciding things in good faith, negotiating as a nation, and coming together with other nations in the world to ensure that we get the best possible future for us and our allies.
We have only a few short months when it comes to this, and I think we are beginning to see just where we are going. Independence now sits at 55%—the highest it has ever secured. There is sustained majority support for independence in Scotland. My nation is making up its mind about the type of future that it wants, and it is not this future as a pariah state, taking us out of the EU against our national collective will. We have only six months to get this debate properly focused and determined. I am pretty sure, when I am looking at opinion polls and seeing where independence is, that Scotland is making up its mind. Scotland is deciding that it is going to be a nation of its own.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, we will reduce the time limit to three minutes. I am sorry about that, but it enables more people to be able to contribute to this lively debate.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Following the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I simply say that Scotland is my nation as well. The SNP does not speak for Scotland. The SNP is not Scotland. I am proud to be Scottish and British, and when the SNP stands up and claims that it speaks for the whole of Scotland, it does not. The hon. Gentleman would be advised to stop making out as if it does.
I want to make the point that this Bill at its heart, at its core, at its centre, is about jobs and businesses. Is it not telling that in all the SNP speeches that I have listened to tonight, jobs and businesses have not been mentioned once? The SNP was opposed to this internal market Bill long before the events of the past few days, because it is opposed to what it means for Scotland and to what the UK Government can do for Scotland and for the 545,000 jobs that the Fraser of Allander Institute says rely on the internal market of the United Kingdom. In 2018, that internal market ensured £51.5 billion of trade between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom—three times more than the trade that Scotland does with the whole European Union put together.
This Bill’s protecting and enshrining our internal market in the United Kingdom is about protecting those jobs and those businesses. It is about ensuring that businesses in Forres and Fort William can do the same trade across all four nations of the United Kingdom as those in Felixstowe and Farnborough. That is what is important about this legislation. That is why we have to ensure that it is there, and that it is capable of delivering for individuals, for businesses, for their jobs and for the communities that they serve. That is why I believe that at the heart of this legislation we should be speaking about what it means for our communities, our businesses and our jobs the length and breadth of the country.
I want to focus on remarks by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and by the SNP the whole time, about how this is somehow a power grab. It cannot be a power grab when more than 100 extra powers are going to Holyrood, to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish Government, and not one is being taken away. That cannot be explained as a power grab.
Douglas Ross
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I like debating with him and he has tried to get in plenty of times, but I must say to Members on both sides that debating time is about to be constrained by a further minute for each speaker and there are more than 100 Members on today’s call list, so I will not take interventions.
There is no power grab; 100 extra powers are going to the Scottish Parliament, and not a single one is being taken away. For some reason, SNP Members are now against the UK Government investing in Scotland. This is the same SNP and Scottish Government who are saying, “We don’t want your money in Scotland.” Well, I do. In my nation of Scotland, I want to see our two Governments working together as they do on city and growth deals the length and breadth of the country. Every part of Scotland is now covered by a city and growth deal, which shows our two Governments working together and investing together. That is what people want: not a rehash of the division of the past, which the SNP continually wants to drag us to, but looking to the future of Scotland—looking to the future of what we can achieve together as a United Kingdom, with our UK internal market delivering for jobs, communities, the economy and businesses. That is what we want to focus on.
I understand the concerns of Members across the House, but by voting for this legislation at stage 2—Second Reading—tonight, we will allow it to go into Committee and allow the democratically elected Parliament of the United Kingdom to scrutinise, debate and, potentially, amend it. That is what we should be doing.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a pleasure to hear the erudite legal arguments tonight from Members including the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am not an erudite international lawyer, so I see it as it is, and perhaps I will put it in simpler terms. It is an utter shambles. It is chaotic.
We have a history of cheap slogans that are now coming home to roost. When people boil down major international issues into three-word slogans and believe that they are true, this is what happens. We had “Take back control”, when we already decided the vast majority of our laws. We had “Get Brexit done”, when it is not as simple as that at all, as we can see from our being here today discussing it. Then we had the “oven-ready deal”—the deal that was then delivered by the current Prime Minister but is now being undermined by his very own Bill. It threw up squarely and clearly the problems between Brexit and the hard-fought Good Friday agreement, and it is now being ripped up and is causing huge problems, playing fast and loose with devolution.
The impact on the independent decision making of the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive is frankly shocking, especially for a party that describes itself as the Conservative and Unionist party, but that is not entirely surprising. This is a Government who think that the law can be applied differentially. We saw it with the shutting down of Parliament illegally before the last general election. We have seen it with the breaking of lockdown rules for some favoured few. Shockingly, we see it now with the breaking of international law. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) says that, if we break international law, it should not be done casually. Well, this seems rushed and casual to me. Less than a week ago, none of us knew that this was coming—perhaps not even the Prime Minister—but it has huge long-term impacts.
This afternoon, I chaired the Public Accounts Committee. We were looking seriously at the Government’s proposals around export strategy; the Government have a target to boost exports, which we would all expect. We were challenging the Department about how it was going to achieve that. There is a real will to deliver it, but what country will trust us now if we pass this Bill, which says that we will legislate our way out of any international deal?
In short, this Government are not competent. They have been cavalier, they are undermining the Union and they are damaging the UK’s international reputation irrevocably.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I have a lot of respect for her opinions, but I fundamentally disagree with her on this.
I look around the Chamber at so many dear colleagues with whom I have debated at quite some length over the past four years—nearly four and a half years. This has been so frustrating. Leaving the EU has been the most divisive subject since June 2016. We now have to get to the end of the transition period. We really want a free trade deal as an independent sovereign nation with our EU friends and neighbours that works in the interests of every part of our United Kingdom, and also works in the interests of our EU friends and neighbours and protects their single market. On that, surely, we can agree—apart from perhaps a few of those who still wish we were having a second referendum, but let us not go there.
We negotiated the withdrawal agreement in good faith, as, I think, did the EU member states. The problem is that the Joint Committee, which was set up by that withdrawal agreement, was designed to provide the definitions. It was designed to give us clarity around what “goods at risk” meant, how the Northern Irish protocol would work, and all the details that, as yet, have not been ironed out. What we have discovered—
I can say this, having been part of Cabinet Sub-Committee meetings that discussed some of the EU’s proposals—is that the EU has not acted in good faith. I am very sorry to say that, because EU leaders do, as a rule, want to have good relationships with the United Kingdom, but the Commission has sought to reach into our sovereign United Kingdom and force us, as a member state that has left the EU, to abide by its rules on an ongoing basis, and that is utterly unacceptable.
I will be supporting the Bill today. The reason for that is that we, as the United Kingdom Government, must always be able to hold our heads up high to say that we have acted with integrity in the interests of our United Kingdom, that we are protecting the Belfast Good Friday agreement, and that we are giving the essential clarity and certainty to businesses that they desperately need. I urge all colleagues to please support the Bill tonight.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I am appalled by this Bill, and I have been trying to think why. The conclusion that I have reached is that we have two genuinely opposing world views conflicting tonight. From the perspective of the SNP, on behalf of Scotland’s interests, we have a fundamentally different view from the Members on the Government Benches—not illegitimate but different. We are two nations going in two different directions with different ambitions, and this Bill cuts across deep visceral principles of my party. We believe in the rule of law. We are a constitutional party. We believe in a multilateral, rules-based order. We have a clear vision of how we want Scotland to fit into that organised, binding international solidarity. We believe that agreements should be honoured. I would not have thought that that was a controversial statement, but it is in the face of this Bill, and it shames this House that we are even considering it.
We believe that the people best placed to make decisions for Scotland are the people who live in Scotland. In 1997, by 74%, the people of Scotland endorsed that principle, and endorsed the model of devolution that said that, unless specifically reserved to this place, decisions should be made in Scotland by our democratic authority. It is that principle that this Bill undermines.
Members should be in no doubt: the operation of this Bill is a wholesale, calculated, deliberate reversal of the devolution principle. There is no amount of bluster that will distract from that—not that we have heard much of it; they have all gone quiet. It is there in the Bill for all to see. In clause 46, there is an explicit assumption of budgets in Scotland, without Scotland’s consent. In clause 48, a power of subsidy is explicitly assumed, again without Scotland’s consent. In part 1, on the mutual recognition rules, it is clear that the operation of the UK internal market will undermine out of existence the competence and capacity of the Scottish authorities to make different decisions.
The most egregious part for me is part 4, on the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. For people who talked about unelected bureaucrats, here are unelected bureaucrats on steroids: people who will sit above each and every public organisation and authority in Scotland and gainsay every budget and every decision going forward—a politically appointed death panel that will sit above every democratic decision of every organisation in Scotland. We reject it. It is not in Scotland’s name.
This is a bad Bill. It undermines devolution. It actually strengthens the case for independence, if Conservative Members really want to have some pause. This House should reject this appalling piece of legislation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The withdrawal agreement is a profoundly self-contradictory document, and never more so than in respect of Northern Ireland. It declares ringingly, for example, that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, whereas the substance of it is that it is part of the customs territory of the European Union. Similarly, it provides that Northern Ireland should have unfettered access to the mainland British market, but at the same time it sets up arrangements to frustrate that. These provisions can potentially have the most serious adverse consequences on the integrity of the UK market.
The position is that unless provisions to the contrary are agreed in the joint committee or in the future relationship negotiations, trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will be severely impeded. Checks will apply to goods passing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the EU customs code will apply to Northern Ireland, potentially meaning tariffs applied on goods passing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Part 5 of the Bill amounts to a safeguard against the potential consequences of this state of affairs. Of course, if a free trade agreement can be concluded, there will very probably be nothing to worry about. An acceptable free trade agreement could subsume the withdrawal agreement and thus the problem, and put relations between the UK and the EU on a more regular footing.
The EU is crying foul at the publication of this Bill, but the fact is that the EU’s own conduct in the negotiations has simply not adhered to the provisions of the withdrawal agreement. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, these obligations move in both directions. The agreement provides that both parties should attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement acting in good faith and using best endeavours. The political declaration provides that the negotiations should respect UK sovereignty and the integrity of the United Kingdom market. However, the EU’s conduct has not reflected the obligations it has under the withdrawal agreement. It has refused to discuss anything apart from its own red lines of fisheries and the so-called level playing field. It is therefore essential that we should put in place measures that will protect us and our internal market in the event that the negotiations do not result in the sort of free trade agreement we are seeking.
It would be contrary to the national interest of this country if this Bill were not passed. The consequences for our constituencies and the livelihoods of their residents would be very serious if the Bill were not enacted, and it therefore has my full support.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This law is a scoundrel’s charter. I was taught as a child that it was the quintessence of Britishness and the quintessence of honour that my word was my bond—that what I had signed up to I was pledged to and I would stand by. We, the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Ministers on behalf of the whole nation, and this Parliament—the newly elected Parliament—signed this into law. We signed on the dotted line. The Prime Minister called it a “fantastic moment”. He said it was a great, great deal. The Tory manifesto was absolutely clear that it was a wonderful ready-made deal for the United Kingdom. Now the Government intend to trail our honour through the mud, and I will do everything I possibly can to prevent that.
If this goes through in the way that it is drafted at the moment, we will become the scoundrels of international law. The Government have even put their bad faith into the Bill. With the single word, “notwithstanding”, they have made Government Ministers do contortions. Who ever thought that we would hear a Government Minister say that the Bill breaks international law in a “specific and limited way” as if that is fine—some kind of Cummings get-out clause? Even worse, the Justice Secretary said, “I’ll quit if the rule of law is broken in an unacceptable way.” So now, according to the Justice Secretary, there is an acceptable way for somebody to break the law—again, the Cummings rule.
Clause 45 actually uses the word “notwithstanding”. I thought I might hear Vladimir Putin say, “notwithstanding the Budapest accord, which guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine”, or President Xi say, “notwithstanding the Sino-British joint declaration”. I never thought that I would see in a British Bill signed off by British Government Ministers, who are meant to respect the rule of law, a line that says:
“notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent”.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, “It’s just a mistake; we should say it’s a mistake.” Well, why did everybody vote for it? What honour can you possibly have if you think that this is just a mistake?
There is another fib at the heart of the Bill, which is that it purports to say that there is going to be lots of extra money for constituents like mine in the devolved areas of the country. I do not think we will get a single extra penny, because we have been waiting for the shared prosperity fund for weeks and months and years, and not a single word has yet been published about it.
The truth is that we need the rule of law in this country; we rely on international treaties. It guarantees contracts. It makes us honest and protects us from overbearing government. I say to the Government: if you try to sack members of your own party because they have a conscience, you are on the route to dictatorship.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
This is of course an essential Bill for the good order of the internal market. It is essential for our economic success, wellbeing, jobs and employment, and I support it. I am very surprised at the EU’s negotiating strategy and purpose, particularly in offering my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), in effect, the Canada deal, and then declining, to date, to offer the same terms to the Prime Minister. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the Bill’s Second Reading, and I give the Government my strong support for reaching a deal.
But I am not going to vote to breach international law, and I want to explain why. As International Development Secretary in the coalition Government, I consistently spoke up for the rule of law. Britain has been a beacon, in some very difficult places in the world, for support for the rule of law. Our support is relied on in that respect, and it matters, whether we are dealing with the rights of gay people in Uganda or ensuring the last vestiges of law in Zimbabwe, never quite snuffed out by dint of Britain’s strong support for the rule of law. Many in this House have rightly spoken up for the rights of Hong Kong citizens when China has sought to resile from international agreements it had signed. We are one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. We have a duty to uphold international law. The rule of law is incredibly important for our basic liberties and human rights, and failing to do so will do incalculable damage to our reputation all around the world.
I have two further points to make. The first is that Members of the House should read with the greatest care what John Major and Tony Blair have said about the dangers of all this for the Good Friday agreement and peace across Northern Ireland. I have been here long enough to remember the awful statements about violence in Northern Ireland, with innocent civilians maimed and worse. Secondly, we have one of the largest national debts of any country in the world, and confidence in our debt depends on an absolute understanding that Britain will always stand by its word.
In the past, I have voted in this House in ways that I have regretted. I voted for section 28, I voted for the poll tax and I voted with the then Prime Minister on Iraq. But I do not believe I have ever gone into a Lobby to vote in a way that I knew was wrong, and I will not be doing it on this occasion either.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell): this Bill breaks the rule of law. It is against the national interests, and my party will oppose it. That might not surprise people. We have argued for Britain to work with our European partners at the heart of Europe, but in our opposition to the Bill, I am determined that we represent the views of leave voters as well as remain voters.
From the Prime Minister’s promise that he had an oven-ready deal to his promise that he wanted a global Britain, this Bill breaks those promises made to leave voters. If the Government were to carry out their threat and breach the international treaty that the Prime Minister himself signed, it is clear that there would be no deal. The oven would not even be opened. If the Government deliberately and intentionally break international law, global Britain’s ability to exercise influence in the world would be weaker than at any time since the first half of the 18th century.
As the arch Brexiteer and former Conservative party leader Michael Howard said, what message does this send to China, Russia or Iran? What credibility will Britain have in urging other countries to uphold international law if our great Parliament votes for this Bill? What about the future trade deals that Britain so desperately needs as we leave the world’s largest single market while trying to recover from covid and this deep recession?
Our Prime Minister likes to portray himself as a modern-day Churchill, but Churchill said that the rule of law is part of the “title deeds of freedom”. Churchill will turn in his grave if this Bill passes tonight. Let us remember what we teach our children in every school across this country. We teach them about British values of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. This Bill is against the very values that we teach our children about the importance of obeying the law.
For a Government to send this law-breaking signal would be appalling at any time, but we are in the middle of a pandemic, and if we are to beat this dreadful virus, people need to obey the law, even when the emergency covid laws were among the most draconian that the British people have faced for centuries. The rule of law has never been more precious to the health of our nation, and yet the Prime Minister has chosen this moment to trash the rule of law. This House must stop him tonight.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
In the short time available to me, I want to focus on the aspects most relevant to Scotland. This Bill is about protecting those who work or do business across the four nations of our United Kingdom. That single internal UK market has served us well for centuries, creating a barrier-free internal market that was one of the core purposes of the Acts of Union. Until we joined the European Communities in 1973, that internal market was regulated by this Parliament. From the point that we joined the European Economic Community, the crucial aspect of market control passed to the European level. Europe took those powers for pragmatic reasons, because they were simply needed to operate its single market. That is the spirit behind this Bill too.
We have heard a lot about devolution in the context of the Bill, including from a number of Members during the debate. The devolution settlements were made in the late 1990s, when there was virtually no thought that the UK would leave the EU. EU law was binding on the devolved Assemblies, and the UK Government, acting on behalf of the whole UK, represented all four nations at the Council of Ministers, including in devolved areas.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill strengthens the Union rather than weakens it as Opposition Members are saying?
John Lamont
I am grateful for that point and completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill not only protects jobs but strengthens the bonds of the Union that ties the United Kingdom together. As well as remembering the history, we must understand what devolution is in the United Kingdom. It is a means of giving people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the freedom to craft policies and take decisions on matters that affect them, while continuing to derive all the benefits of membership of a unitary United Kingdom. Right from the very beginning, it has been a central assumption of devolution that matters essential to the operation of the United Kingdom would be decided at UK level.
This Parliament is the democratic embodiment of the United Kingdom, and it contains Members who have been elected on an equal basis and who represent every square inch of the United Kingdom. It is here that decisions affecting the UK as a whole should be taken, just as those that affect the whole of the European Union are taken in Brussels—a fact with which very few Opposition Members had any problems at the time. That inconsistency speaks volumes, especially when the net effect of Brexit will be a massive increase in devolved powers, including those on air quality, energy efficiency and elements of employment law. It is a further irony that SNP policy is to hand those new powers straight back to Brussels at the first available opportunity.
Sir John Hayes
As my hon. Friend knows, this Parliament is the guarantor of people’s freedoms. That is not about international arrangements or foreign Governments; this sovereign Parliament guarantees people’s freedoms in this country, and guarantees that the will of the people is expressed here and honoured. That seems to be lost on many critics of the Bill, and I hope that, like me, my hon. Friend will support it with enthusiasm.
John Lamont
I absolutely will support the Bill with enthusiasm. It protects the 500,000 jobs in Scotland that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) mentioned earlier. This is about protecting the Union, and we should not forget that this Parliament is sovereign and a protector of the rule of law.
The Bill is about making the UK work as a fully integrated, seamless internal market. It is in the interests of every business trading across the United Kingdom, and of everyone who wants to make devolution work. It should be of no surprise that it is so hated by those whose sole political purpose is to destroy devolution by ripping Scotland out of this most important single United Kingdom market.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Unionist from Scotland, and I agree with him. The first question I ask myself about the Bill is this: will it strengthen the Union? In as far as it goes, I believe it will. We would like more to be done, but let me briefly mention the points raised about the Good Friday agreement. I grew up in a Northern Ireland that was deeply troubled. I lost members of my family, who were murdered during those troubles. I do not want to go back to those dark days.
Who is it that threatens the peace process in Northern Ireland? It is not Her Majesty’s Government who threaten that peace process; it is these men and women in the shadows. Who is playing fast and loose with the peace process? Who is using it as a political football in this situation? I do not believe the UK Government are using the Northern Ireland peace process as some kind of political football or a negotiating point.
Jim Shannon
Clause 47 ensures that as a sovereign nation, the UK will set the rules on state aid for Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a vital means of fending off predatory behaviour from our nearest competitor, and EU threats regarding the supply of food without an agreement and without this Bill? The Bill is necessary to ensure that Northern Ireland has basic food importation from the rest of the UK, if those threats are carried through by the EU in the event of a no deal.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I simply pose the question: how does it threaten the Good Friday agreement to ensure that people in my constituency can go to their local Tesco, Asda or Sainsbury’s and buy the same food that people can buy in any other constituency in the rest of the United Kingdom? How does that threaten the peace process? How does it threaten the peace process to ensure that businesses in my constituency do not have the burden of added paperwork, or the cost of export declarations?
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman and shall be supporting the Bill tonight, because we must keep the United Kingdom together and we must not have a barrier down the Irish sea. Is it not the case that the European Union wants to keep us in the same rules, so that it can integrate the food systems on the island of Ireland? It needs to be much more practical and to come up with a solution whereby we can trade across the border but do not have to comply exactly with its rules.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
At the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is the principle that every signatory to that agreement accepts that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of this United Kingdom. Sadly, what the EU proposes breaches that core principle of the agreement. It is that breach that threatens the stability of Northern Ireland, because peace and prosperity go hand in hand. What kind of peace is it in Northern Ireland if we do not have prosperity—if our businesses are failing because of the added burden that the EU wants to impose? How does that bring prosperity, stability and peace to Northern Ireland?
The Bill is fundamental to delivering what we need, but we need even more than this. That is why we will seek to amend the Bill, specifically to address the point my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about state aid. It is not enough just to address the state aid issue in the context of Great Britain; it must also be addressed in respect of Northern Ireland. The UK must set the rules on state aid in Northern Ireland, not the European Union. Such a tool is vital to help Northern Ireland businesses fend off predatory behaviour from our nearest competitors, and in Northern Ireland our nearest competitors are in the European Union.
I welcome the progress that is marked by this Bill in dealing with export declarations on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, but 65% of the goods that Northern Ireland purchases come from Great Britain. Therefore, we need the Government to go further and guarantee that we will not have export declarations on goods moving from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom, be that from Great Britain to Northern Ireland or from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. That is what unfettered access actually means, and the European Union signed up to unfettered access and to the United Kingdom Government having the power to ensure that Northern Ireland has unfettered access. The Bill before us will deliver that, subject of course to some amendments that we would like to make.
In conclusion, as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I do not accept the contention that the Bill threatens the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. I do not accept the contention that the Bill threatens the peace process. Prosperity is essential to building peace in Northern Ireland. The arrangements proposed by the EU threaten the prosperity of Northern Ireland, and in threatening the prosperity of Northern Ireland they threaten the peace.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that the wind-ups will begin at 9.40.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson).
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), I think there is much in the Bill to admire. The general aims of the Bill and much of its content are absolutely necessary to ensure that the competences that return to the UK from the EU are put into UK law. However, like many people across the House, I have serious concerns about part 5 and the effect of those provisions on our international reputation, the rule of law and Northern Ireland.
Many people seem to be justifying part 5 as necessary to avoid an impact on GB-to-Northern Ireland trade. It is one thing to reject a draft treaty on those grounds; it is an entirely different premise to consider breaching existing treaty obligations, freely entered into by the Government. Some level of bureaucracy for trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was and is the foreseeable and obvious consequence of the withdrawal agreement that we signed. That point was highlighted at the time, but it was justified as a way to move on to the next phase. Moreover, many of us were reassured at the time that technology would ensure that those checks would be simple and quick.
The withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and the consequent effects on trade, were negotiated by this Government and were part of our election manifesto. If the Government believe that the EU is acting in bad faith, making threats to food supplies or critically affecting the integrity of the UK, there are already agreed mechanisms in the withdrawal agreement to deal with that. For example, if the Government believed that we could not import food into Northern Ireland, article 16 of the protocol specifically allows the UK to act at that point to remedy the problem however it wants to.
The UK has a proud reputation of upholding the rule of law, as many hon. Members have said, and has been a trusted international partner. This country cannot and does not break international law just because it does not like the compromise that it has signed up to. I was interested in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s remarks about regulations being made under these powers and the possibility of the House having a further vote. I would be interested to hear later from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), whether the Government intend to table an amendment to that effect, because I think that doing so would reassure many people. Nevertheless, clause 45(2)(b), if passed, at the moment of Royal Assent would lead to a breach of international law and the withdrawal agreement. I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there is still plenty of time for those of us who have concerns about part 5 to be reassured, and I look to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to give us those reassurances later this evening.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It seems to me that some arguments we are hearing this evening are broadly about international law and those sorts of obligations, despite France and Germany being in the premier league of infractions of their EU obligations, and many other instances raised by hon. and right hon. Members about other global infractions by various nations. Let us be clear: the provisions of this Bill are fully allowed for within the Northern Ireland protocol. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who opened for the Opposition, made reference to the exact appropriate article—paragraph 1 of article 16—which says:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
If these provisions are entirely within the protocol, why are the Government saying that they are breaking the law?
Craig Mackinlay
That is a matter for the Government to answer; I do not believe that we are breaking international law in any way.
What we are proposing in the Bill is also allowed for under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed by this House in quick time and by broad measure. There are no surprises in this Bill. Surely any Member could appreciate that these provisions stand to reason, with negotiations going nowhere; best endeavours, as required in the withdrawal agreement, seemingly ignored by the other side; demands that we become the only independent coastal state on this planet that would have its fisheries resource controlled by a foreign power, and that state aid and level playing field rules continue, leaving us as a supplicant nation; and, the latest we hear, a threat to the food supply and supply of goods from GB to NI.
I am going to talk about fists. We all have them and they are potential weapons for illegal acts if we use them wantonly or recklessly, but we do not so they are not. The law gives us the absolute right of self-defence using those physical assets to protect ourselves and/or our family. Northern Ireland is part of our family of this Union of nations. The provisions in this Bill are for self-defence only—defence of our Union, and particularly in defence of the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.
We are elected to this House to stand up to bullies, and I will do everything that is necessary and within my power to deliver Brexit properly and cleanly. If the EU will not discuss future arrangements fairly and with best endeavours, we must take any measure that is necessary to ensure the continuance of normality and trade across our Union. I will be supporting the Bill wholeheartedly this evening.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
For over 20 years now, the people of Scotland have had a Parliament to call their own. Since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, it has become an established part of Scotland’s political life, delivering on the priorities of the people of Scotland. More importantly, it has demonstrated what a modern Parliament, close to the people it serves, can look like, in contrast to the remote and often stuffy atmosphere in this place.
With the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the mask has well and truly slipped. The Tories have revealed their anti-devolution instincts. This Bill is nothing less than a brazen attack on established norms and institutions, setting dangerous precedents for the rule of law and Scotland’s Parliament. A Government Minister admitting that this Bill has been drafted with the intention of breaking international law is a clear sign of just how far the Tory party has been captured by this Dominic Cummings Government.
Since breaching solemn agreements is now a cornerstone of Tory party policy, I will remind Government Members of the agreement they entered into with voters in 2014. They said that the people of Scotland would get the “best of both worlds”—that the Scottish Parliament would be strengthened within the Union. The promises of 2014 could not be further from the reality of what this Bill will do to undermine the devolution settlement. It sticks in the mind when someone breaks an agreement, engendering feelings of anger and betrayal. It is perhaps no surprise that there is a genuine shift towards majority support now for independence for Scotland, as we are seeing the multitude of broken promises made by the Better Together parties mount up throughout the Brexit process.
This Bill is the worst of all worlds. It kicks off a race to the bottom between the four UK nations on food and environmental standards. It re-reserves subsidies in areas previously covered by EU state aid, even if those subsidies relate to devolved areas such as agriculture, infrastructure and culture. To top off this shameless power grab, the Bill will, if it completes its passage unaltered through this place, become a protected enactment under the Scotland Act 1998. As a result, the Scottish Parliament will not be allowed to legislate in a way that is incompatible with the rules laid down in the Bill, even if the proposed legislation falls within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. That is a clear breach of the principle of the Scotland Act 1998 that power devolved is power retained. That is why I and my colleagues on the SNP Benches this evening will be defending devolution by voting against the Bill tonight.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I hope I will not be too foul tempered tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is not a disposition I warm to.
There is a worrying trend—a worrying narrative—emerging, and this debate is a good opportunity to get a lot of things on the record, as I build an argument in the next 2 minutes and 45 seconds. First, I am extremely concerned that we are placing severe restrictions on people’s liberties without any recourse to Parliament. I would actually vote, in certain circumstances, to take people’s liberties away if I thought it was in the national interest, but I would like to have the chance to debate it on the Floor of the House and represent the concerns of my constituents.
I am also concerned that we go around arresting old men in Trafalgar Square for having a peaceful protest and fining them £10,000. I never thought I would ever be defending Mr Corbyn in the Chamber, but I am—I am defending a Corbyn. We have to be allowed to protest without fear of arrest and being fined, and today we hear that the public will be urged to inform on their friends and neighbours, because granny has followed grandad into a family home of five. This is a profoundly un-conservative thing.
All these things are un-conservative, and I do think that we are being asked here to put this country—this House, Members of this House, our constituents—on the wrong side of the law before we have exhausted all other options. I am no fan of the EU—I was in every single Division Lobby for Brexit and I think the EU is a pain in the neck—but surely we have to exhaust all other options before we press the nuclear button.
I will not be voting for the Bill’s Second Reading, because if you keep whacking a dog, you shouldn’t be surprised when it bites you back. We are all Members of Parliament and we deserve to be taken seriously. I accept that there is a pandemic and a national crisis, but surely that is the time when our voices should be heard on behalf of our constituents. It is the most important time, so I hope—I see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his place—the Government go away tonight and the Prime Minister reflects on what is going on, listens to the concerns of this House and comes back with a solution that allows me to skip through the Lobby on Third Reading and support him on this important Bill. I do believe, colleagues, that the Conservative party is the greatest political party ever, and we have to have the courage to live up to that greatness.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that the Northern Ireland protocol was a very, very ingenuous scheme—sorry, a “very, very ingenious scheme”. I will say it one more time, because it is worthy of repetition. He said it is
“a very, very ingenious scheme”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.]
It is almost Trump-esque in its rhetoric, and as we find so often with populists around the world, it is very easy to make far-fetched promises, but it is much harder to deliver them in practice. Reality is biting the Prime Minister and it is biting him hard.
As we have seen this afternoon, things have not exactly gone to script. The Prime Minister has been turning up at Prime Minister’s questions in recent weeks wishing he was facing a former leader of the Labour party. This afternoon, he got one and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) wiped the floor with the Prime Minister, so much so that he had to scurry away back to his office, so badly battered and bruised was he. He was not even able to defend the Bill. He probably had not read it, because it is certainly clear from what he has said in recent days that he had not read the withdrawal agreement or the Northern Ireland protocol. Even this afternoon, he still did not understand the content that he has signed up to.
Contrary to there being a remainer plot, the script simply does not work. We have left the European Union. We are no longer members of the European Union. We are not going back. The only question now is whether we have a trade deal with the European Union that puts to bed so many of the difficult, thorny, challenging, but not insurmountable issues that many of us warned and argued over recent years would arise. The Prime Minister can hardly be surprised.
What I am surprised by is the scale of their misjudgments and their incompetence, even by this Government’s standards. With one decision, they have shaken the foundations of the Good Friday agreement, threatened the prospects of a trade deal with the European Union, and risked the prospects of a trade deal with the United States of America. With that, they have jeopardised future prosperity, jobs and the economy when we are facing the worst recession in hundreds of years. They have given further cause for grievance to the nationalists and threatened the Union. The irony is that a Bill that is supposed to strengthen the Union actually threatens its future. Perhaps worst of all, it threatens the standing and reputation of our country around the world, not only in the eyes of our allies, but in the eyes of our enemies, too.
I ask Members on the Government Benches: what has happened to the Conservative and Unionist party of Disraeli, Churchill, Macmillan and Thatcher? I cannot think of a single former Conservative Prime Minister who would behave in this way. I just say to them that, from experience, it is hard standing up to your own side when they are doing something wrong, but you will be doing the right thing by opposing this Bill and will sleep more soundly for it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
We need to come back to some reality about what this Bill is actually about. This Bill is about safeguarding the future of the United Kingdom, because it is about safeguarding the ability of nations to be able to trade with each other. I am sure many of our constituents would be flabbergasted that we even have to pass a Bill to do that. They would think that would come as a matter of course. In doing so, we will be giving businesses the certainty they need during this very difficult period. So many of the details that should have been ironed out by now are still left hanging, so we should be unsurprised that we are discussing this Bill tonight.
When the withdrawal agreement was put to the House of Commons and we voted on it, we did so based on the notion that it would be dealt with in negotiations in good faith and using best endeavours, because that is the way negotiations proceed, but all of us who remember the way that our country has been treated throughout this process perhaps should not be surprised that we find ourselves here today and that the Government feel that this Bill is an essential safety net that needs to be put in place.
Mrs Miller
I will not give way, as a lot of people need to speak today. This is a safety net to stop the EU being able to determine UK trade policy, not overseas, but within our own countries. Despite a referendum result, votes in this Parliament and the clear will of the British people at the last general election, we still find ourselves in this period of uncertainty with the EU. So I believe the debate tonight is as much about British sovereignty as it is about the rule of law, and Members need to reflect on that.
The Government are in an invidious position. They are negotiating with an organisation that is renowned for and thrives on its love of last-minute agreements and all-night negotiations. The truth is that the EU still wants to make this country’s exit from its trading bloc as difficult as possible, and its behaviour, in delay upon delay, has to come to an end. If this Bill is part of that process, it gets my full support. The British people can see the tactics being deployed by the EU for what they are. Many Opposition Members know this and sit uneasy when listening to their Front Benchers’ rationale for not supporting the Bill tonight, because they know that their electorate are as fed up as everybody else that we are here today again, with the EU attempting to stifle the will of the British people. I speak as somebody who voted to remain in the EU but who has been appalled by the way we have been treated ever since, with the EU using its treatment of the UK as a strong message to other member states. I listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I hope that the Minister will deal directly with the issues he raised.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister won the last election based on the promise to “get Brexit done”. That was his mandate, given to him by the British people—to move on. He said there would be
“no more dither and delay”.
He said, “Let’s get our oven-ready deal through.” He won an 80-seat majority based on that withdrawal agreement, and this Parliament ratified it. We are calling on him to deliver the deal he promised, one that would work for Britain in terms of protecting jobs and the Union, and then we can get on with tackling the coronavirus crisis. So why is he dithering and delaying? Why is he introducing legislation designed to reopen old Brexit wounds? He called the withdrawal agreement a “fantastic” deal for the country, but now he says it never made sense. Was he deliberately misleading the British people then, or is he doing so now?
Not only has the Prime Minister undermined trust here at home, but he is trashing his Government’s reputation as a trustworthy and reliable member of the international community, because it is absolutely clear that this legislation breaks international law. The Brexiteer who signed off this deal as Attorney General described the Bill as “unconscionable” and all five living former Prime Ministers are united in agreement.
Our greatness as a country is built upon our values and the fact that we have long stood up for the rule of law. This Prime Minister wants to throw all that away. The UK needs to be standing up to the Chinese communist party’s breaches of international law and Russia’s foul play, but how can we do that with credibility if we are advocating breaking international law? With one stroke of his pen, this Prime Minister has torpedoed the painstaking work that our diplomats do every day.
This is not just a question of trust or morality; it is also about our commercial and economic interests. We are going out into the world to negotiate new trade deals post Brexit, but how can any other country trust us to keep to those agreements? If this Bill passes into statute, the Prime Minister will be sending his trade negotiators naked into the conference chambers. This Bill is not only dismantling the manifesto pledge and our international reputation, but it is creating a constitutional crisis, trashing the common frameworks that are the basis for our devolved constitutional settlement and creating the conditions for a race to the bottom on standards, opening the door to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef becoming the norm. Trade negotiations are never a walk in the park. Both sides will always defend their interests, and that is fair enough, but the rules are the rules. A commitment is a commitment. Our word is our bond. I therefore urge hon. Members to behave with honour and to join us in the No Lobby this evening.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is an important debate for me, considering that I represent Bridgend, a constituency in Wales, which stands to benefit greatly from ensuring that our internal market within the UK remains intact, as it has for hundreds of years. I am proud to say that if the pollsters are to be believed, Wales is now the most Unionist part of the UK, and my constituents voted leave in 2016 and, of course, backed the “get Brexit done” party at the last election. On those bases, and as a staunch Unionist myself, I will support the passage of the Bill through this place.
On the issue of one single internal market, I just cannot imagine a scenario where a Bridgend-based business is unable to export its goods or services, or faces difficulty in exporting its goods or services, to England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The internal market is vital to the whole of the Welsh economy, and illustrative figures from the White Paper show that any contraction to the GDP of Wales will be five times greater than that of the UK average. I pledged to my constituents to help to make a success of Brexit, and allowing economic barriers between any parts of the UK clearly runs contrary to that.
The people of Bridgend have two Governments: the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and I am particularly pleased that the Bill will facilitate the latter to invest in businesses and communities across Wales as we recover from covid-19, and I look forward to meeting Ministers to talk about my ideas on how that could be done. To those who argue that somehow the Bill undermines devolution, I remind them that many of the powers ceded to the EU, many of which were ceded before devolution existed, will be transferred to the devolved Administration. Around 60 to 70 new policy areas will now be decided in Cardiff Bay, making the Welsh Government more powerful than it has ever been. For those reasons, I will support the Government tonight, and do so wholeheartedly.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Bill is a very grave mistake, and there are numerous reasons to oppose it. Any one of them by itself would be enough, but taken together they make this quite possibly the worst piece of legislation brought before this House by this Government, and that is saying something. The legal consequences of passing the Bill are largely negative. It drives a coach and horses through the withdrawal agreement. Ministers should not need reminding that the withdrawal agreement is part of a solemn and binding international treaty, and that breaching a treaty breaches international law.
The passage of this Bill has wider international legal consequences. It undermines the basis of the Good Friday agreement, another solemn, agreed international treaty, which has laid the basis for peace in Ireland. It is absolutely not the case that the withdrawal agreement undermines the Good Friday agreement, as some Ministers now wish to claim. None of the main political parties in Ireland agrees with Ministers on that point.
While I am on the theme of undermining different parts of these isles, I point out that this legislation risks the integrity of our Union by undermining the devolution settlement. Any Government who claim to be truly Unionist would not develop legislation without the co-operation, collaboration and, above all, consent of the devolved Administrations. That is not what this legislation does.
The Bill also calls into question the good faith of this Government in their entire dealings with international partners. Must they now factor the integrity of Her Majesty’s Government into discussions and agreements? Do the Government really want to make us that country, known for reneging on its agreements because we later find them inconvenient?
I will focus my remaining remarks on the wider impact on this country of what the Government propose. It is now clear that the Government are aiming for an enormously damaging no-deal outcome to the Brexit negotiations. Let me be clear: a no-deal outcome will be disastrous for the living standards of people in this country.
As if the shocking revelations of the Operation Yellowhammer leak were not bad enough, forecasts by the Cabinet Office’s EU transition taskforce go considerably further and combine the potential issue of no deal with a second wave of coronavirus. The forecasts include shortages of fresh food, medicine and fuel, and even of chemicals for water purification, as well as price hikes on everyday items. Worst-case scenario, yes, but would a Government who cared even risk it?
I simply cannot get my head around the fact that the Government are attempting to push through a project that the Treasury’s own analysis says will lower GDP by 6.9% and destroy jobs. That analysis was made even before the effects of the pandemic. It is a far cry from the Conservative party posters we saw that said, “We are taking back control to protect jobs and businesses”. The Bill is an enormous act of self-harm. It damages us legally, reputationally and economically and, as Government Ministers admit, it is literally criminal to pass it.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
As Conservatives, we believe that this family of nations bound together by the Union forms the bedrock of our prosperity. Central to that prosperity is the freedom to trade unhindered across these islands—an internal market without barriers knitted together over 300 years. For the past 40 of those years, the framework underpinning our single market was EU membership but, now that we have left, it is vital that we set our own framework as we forge our future as an independent nation state.
In 1707, the Act of Union brought England and Scotland together. Of its 25 articles, 15 were economic in nature, including the creation of a customs and monetary union. The reasons that spurred us on 300 years ago still exist today: to unlock our full financial power by pooling and sharing our resources; to defend the security of our nations; to provide access across the four nations to our international trading opportunities; and to create an integrated economic internal market. Those four goals are just as valuable to the British people today as they were then, and the Bill will help to us achieve them. It will ensure that Scottish and Welsh businesses can continue to export their goods and services to their main trade destination—the rest of the UK— unhindered. That destination accounts for a greater proportion of their trade than the rest of the world combined.
The Bill also allows the UK Government’s spending powers to benefit all UK citizens—to join up and level-up infrastructure spending with UK-wide strategies to create a stronger economy for Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—and it protects Northern Ireland’s position in our Union by ensuring that the Good Friday agreement is protected and that east-west economic relations are maintained.
I sincerely hope that the negotiations with the EU will, as intended, find a way to de-dramatise checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, either through the protocol or through a new free trade agreement. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say earlier that we will continue to use the mechanisms—such as the Joint Committee—set out in the withdrawal agreement to resolve disputes. However, given the EU’s reluctance to uphold the withdrawal agreement’s clear and stated aim of ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses can have unfettered access to Great British markets, I support our holding the new powers in reserve.
Despite what those on the Opposition Benches might say, the Bill will give more control, which will flow to Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. From fishing to farming to the environment, the devolved Parliaments will gain 74 powers across the different policy areas in the Bill. In fact, the Bill will be the greatest power-up of the devolved Parliaments since their formation.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Bill started out as quite a sensible measure to protect the internal market, but it has become a monster that threatens devolution and our standing in the world. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister, but all I heard were the same old distortions, prevarications and half-truths. It is not good enough. I will vote for the reasoned amendment, and if that fails, I will vote against the Bill, because I am clear that lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers.
Conservative Members won their seats by telling the electorate that they had secured a deal. The Prime Minister toured the country and TV studios telling us that it was a great deal; now he claims that it is full of flaws and holes. What is becoming all too clear is that it is our Prime Minister who is full of flaws and holes. Did he not know what he was signing when he toured those studios? Was he simply talking tosh?
We are being asked to risk our country’s reputation and our ability to negotiate or seek to enforce any future treaty or trade deal. International treaties are either binding or not; we cannot have limited non-compliance. A lifetime ago, I worked with young offenders. I came across plenty who had broken the law in a specific and limited way; it did not make any difference. No one present should countenance the idea that what we are being asked to agree is anything other than lawbreaking.
People who remember the troubles know that we cannot take chances with Northern Ireland. We should not risk the security provided by the Good Friday agreement. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) told us that the protocol was about ensuring continued peace and preserving the agreement. Surely we have enough on our plate trying to combat the pandemic. Maybe the Prime Minister should apply himself a bit more thoroughly to that task. We risk a return to mass unemployment, with all the suffering and societal tensions that will bring. He should apply himself to that. We do not need juvenile brinkmanship; we need mature leadership and responsible behaviour. We need the Government to knuckle down and fulfil their obligations under the agreement they signed and get us the deal they promised. Anything else is a betrayal of the British people.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill. Our internal market of the United Kingdom, which has been established and has flourished for hundreds of years despite what Opposition Members claim, supports millions of jobs and livelihoods across all four nations of the United Kingdom. It is right that we act to preserve the status quo of the internal market. It is what businesses are crying out for and is what the Bill sets out. The Bill ensures that goods can move freely throughout these isles to benefit our numerous sectors, from Scotch whisky and Welsh farming to manufacturing in the north-west of England. In 2016, and again last December, the UK voted to take back control. We must do just that and the Bill intends to do just that.
The Scottish National party claims that the Bill takes powers away from Scotland. That could not be further away from reality. Scotland sells more to the UK than to the rest of the world combined and we on the Government Benches wish for that to continue. Those on the SNP Benches wanted to revoke article 50. If they had succeeded, they would have received no new powers whatsoever. The Bill sees one of the biggest transfers of power to the devolved nations in the history of devolution, but, alas, that transfer of power does not fit with their narrative.
Like most Members, I have received a full mailbox about this Bill, with correspondence from both sides of the argument. It has been mainly from those with hashtags such as #FBPE and #rejoin on Twitter, or from those urging me to back my promise to the British people by getting Brexit done and delivering on the withdrawal agreement. Having signed up to the “Stand up 4 Brexit” pledge, I intend to do just that and back my promise to the British people.
For a successful negotiation, we need both parties to act in good faith. Hearing from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and reading what the UK’s chief negotiator has said, it is clear that that is no longer the case. The Bill addresses the lack of good faith from the European Union and maintains tariff-free, border-free trade within the internal market. Government Members want the internal market to prosper as a truly global Britain, as my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary highlighted today with the Great Britain-Japan trade deal.
I am happy to see that the Opposition have finally come out of hiding with regard to anything Brexit related for the first time in months. However, Opposition Members seek to hold back our opportunities, as they have over the past four years, in a bid to reduce the great ship Britannia to nothing more than a sluggish canal barge.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
We now have a different range of voices from Northern Ireland in this Parliament and I want to make a few things clear at the outset. The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain. They also supported the wrongly maligned backstop and they now pragmatically recognise the need for the protocol, despite its challenges. To be very clear, the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland do not want the Government to break international law on their behalf.
Northern Ireland only works on the basis of sharing and interdependence. The problem with any form of hard Brexit is that it requires some form of interface between the UK and the single market and customs union. The protocol is the inevitable consequence of a hard Brexit, in order to address the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and to protect the Good Friday agreement. We are working off decisions taken here in the UK, not something that the European Union has foisted upon us.
Indeed, I am deeply concerned that the Prime Minister and the Government are twisting and distorting the meaning of the Good Friday agreement for their own political ends. The principle of consent is certainly one major component of the Good Friday agreement, and it is entrenched in the withdrawal agreement, so the Union is not up for grabs in this situation. That is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine in due course. The Good Friday agreement is, in fact, a broad range of relationships across our islands.
The protocol is, in effect, the bare minimum to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. If we default on that, we risk a return of some form of border in that context. The European Union is entitled to protect the integrity of the single market and customs union, and that will create a fresh form of tension.
It is pragmatically easier to manage an interface down the Irish sea than across the land border. We are talking about seven air and sea crossings versus 270 land crossings, and the number of daily movements on the island far outweighs the number across the Irish sea. However, we must do all we can to reduce that interface to a minimum—to make it a dotted line. The way to achieve that is through building trust and good faith with the European Union and by working through the mechanisms of the withdrawal agreement—the Joint Committee and, if necessary, the arbitration mechanism—rather than circumventing it. We need to define what flexibilities and modalities we can.
Through their action, the Government are risking having no future relationship with the European Union. That brings huge consequences for the UK economy and makes the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol down the Irish sea even more stark. I support a trade deal with the United States, which is the dream of many Brexiteers who are forgoing the relationship with the European Union. I am not sure that they are picking up that that is a complete dead end if the Good Friday agreement is compromised by this Parliament.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
This evening there has been much criticism of the Prime Minister, and I think he was at fault. He was at fault for believing the EU when it said that it would negotiate in good faith. He was at fault for believing it when it said it would respect the integrity of the UK and of our internal market. But he is not at fault for trying to remedy the situation with this legislation.
I think it is quite simple: if we do not get a deal that we like, we really have three options. First, we can accept the EU’s idea of a deal by accepting a rule-taking role in relation to Europe. That would breach our manifesto and would fail to deliver Brexit in a form that the people would recognise. That is option one. Option two is to get no free trade agreement but to accept a border within the UK. That would breach the Act of Union and threaten the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Option three is to make a reasonable and legal change to the withdrawal agreement, on terms that were understood and acceptable when that agreement was first framed, in order to safeguard the Union and deliver Brexit. I suggest that those changes would be legal, on the simple grounds that when laws conflict, as they do at this sort of transition phase, domestic law takes precedence.
I pay tribute—I wish he were in his place—to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has done more than any Member of this House, past or present, to deliver the sovereignty of this nation. In the negotiations this time last year, he stood up more than anybody for the sovereignty of the UK, and it is because of him that we have enshrined in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 the commitment to UK sovereignty that we rely on now.
There is a fourth option, of course. There are those three unpalatable options—the third, which I hope we are legislating into force now, is an unpalatable one—but there is a fourth option. It is to get a deal that we can all accept—a deal that the EU itself accepted in principle in the negotiations last year and said at the outset of our trade negotiations would be possible: an agreement based on the deal that it has with Canada. That is the deal that would be acceptable, and it would mean that we did not have to do any of the unpalatable options I mentioned. The way to do that is to pass this Bill to give the Government the negotiating hand they need.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is clear from the Bill and from many of the contributions from Government Members, bar some notable exceptions, that there appears to be little or no respect for democracy, devolution or international diplomacy on the Government Benches. I have heard from many people in Newport West in the past few days and, like them, I believe that the Bill represents the starting gun of a crude and unacceptable race to the bottom. If approved, it will ultimately lead to the undermining of our high food standards, our animal welfare rights and the environmental standards that have helped to save lives and clean our air.
The principle of mutual recognition in the Bill will mean that if, say, the Welsh Government legislate to ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, a company based in England could add chemicals to its poultry, sell it across the border and face no penalties. In fact, if any attempt were made to prevent the sale of its produce, the company could sue for loss of profits. To quote my colleague the Welsh Counsel General, Jeremy Miles, the UK Government plan to
“sacrifice the future of the union by stealing powers from the devolved administrations”.
The Bill is an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have all voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions. This is nothing but a shameless power grab, and it must be stopped.
The First Minister of Wales, my right honourable friend Mark Drakeford, has said that he is willing to negotiate in good faith with the UK Government on the content, scope and structure of the frameworks that regulate the internal market, but he wishes to do so on a genuine national approach. I want to see the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Westminster Government working together to agree common frameworks. Anything forced on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by Westminster is simply unacceptable.
Our Prime Minister, who has developed a taste for breaking international law, now claims that the Bill is necessary because the withdrawal agreement was rushed through. I have not been here as long as some Members, but I have never heard such claptrap. The withdrawal agreement was negotiated by this Prime Minister, agreed by his Cabinet and taken to the country in a general election. I say to Members on the Treasury Bench: “Don’t try to take the people of Newport West or any other part of our country for fools, because you won’t get away with it.”
We have heard from two former Conservative Prime Ministers, including the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); we have heard from former Conservative party leaders; we have heard from many senior Tory Back Benchers in this House and in the other place. They all raised caution, all recognised the importance of our international leadership, and all made it clear that we can never sanction law-breaking. I urge Ministers to heed their calls. Sir John Major said:
“If we lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost something beyond price that may never be regained.”
It is 2020, and my constituents in Newport West and millions across the country have a Government who seek to undermine treaty obligations, who openly admit to breaking international law, and who have failed miserably at giving the country the leadership that it needs. Britain deserves better than this.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Great consternation is felt in Scotland about the way in which part 5 of the Bill seeks to flout international law by breaking a treaty into which the Prime Minister entered freely barely a year ago. There is a long tradition in Scotland, going back to the declaration of Arbroath, that neither the monarch nor the Government are above the law. The Prime Minister should really remember that, because it was Scotland’s Supreme Court that led the way last year in ruling his Prorogation of Parliament unlawful, but it seems that he has learned nothing from that debacle.
Nor has the Prime Minister learned anything from the revulsion that was felt when he allowed his adviser Cummings to flout the lockdown restrictions that the rest of us had to obey. Over the past few days, we have watched a succession of Tory Government lawyers make mealy-mouthed excuses for what the Bill seeks to do. The Lord Chancellor says that he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is “unacceptable”. What—pray tell, Lord Chancellor—is an acceptable way to break the law? I am sure that the thousands of ordinary men and women who have been fined for breaking lockdown restrictions will be very interested to know the answer to that question.
The Attorney General tells us that the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that she is happy to support the Bill; she cites the case of Miller I. Seemingly, she is in ignorance of the fact that at paragraph 55 of its judgment on that case, the UK Supreme Court affirmed that
“treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by…domestic law”.
If she were capable of applying the most rudimentary legal analysis, she would realise that that means that, so far as international law is concerned, the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty cannot supersede the UK’s freely given agreement and obligations in the withdrawal agreement.
I am ashamed to say, as a member of the Scottish Bar, that my fellow Scottish advocate, the Tories’ man in Scotland, the Advocate General, also seems to think it is okay to defend the Bill. I can only assume he is happy to ignore the fact that, in seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Session in respect of judicial review, clause 45 breaches another treaty—the treaty of Union, of which we have heard much this evening, article 19 of which protects the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
The Prime Minister and others have described the Bill as a necessary safety net to protect the Union, but if he looks at the opinion polls in Scotland, including the one commissioned by his own Government, or reads the newspapers over the weekend, he will realise that far from protecting the Union, the Bill will put a final nail in the Union’s coffin.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Bill is necessary to secure free trade and prosperity throughout the United Kingdom, but the focus of much of the debate has not been on that; rather, it has been on the legality or otherwise of the Bill and the proposals before us. In response, it must be noted that Parliament is sovereign. Parliament is supreme. Parliamentary sovereignty is one of the cornerstones of our constitution and always has been. Legislation and the content of legislation, whether to pass it or otherwise, is for Parliament and Parliament alone.
The withdrawal agreement signed by the EU and the UK acknowledged that there might be difficulties with the Northern Ireland protocol. That was acknowledged earlier by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). The agreement states that if the application of the protocol leads to
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade”,
the European Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Provision was made for exactly this contingency in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, section 38 of which states:
“It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign… Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”
That was done because of the ambiguities of the withdrawal agreement relating to Northern Ireland. The agreement holds simultaneously that there will be unfettered access between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain after the transition period and that the EU’s customs code will have direct effect in the territory of Northern Ireland. At best, and at the very least, that is ambiguous; at worst, it is a direct contradiction, because it means that access would be fettered to one place but not to another. This was always going to have to be dealt with in subsequent negotiations.
The main clauses in contention this evening—clauses 42, 43 and 45—will come into effect only if the Joint Committee cannot reach agreement. We know that the Joint Committee negotiations have been going badly, particularly in relation to third country listings. It has become apparent that the EU is taking a direction that we cannot possibly support. We also know that the EU is fearful. Why would it not be? A strong, independent Britain prospering on its doorstep is not something the EU would necessarily welcome.
In saying that, I am sure that both sides in the negotiation want to secure a free trade deal, and I wholeheartedly support that outcome. A free trade agreement would be a win-win for both sides, but it must not be at the expense either of our independent sovereignty or of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We must be honest: the EU is negotiating with its members’ best interests at heart, not Britain’s. It has always sought to use Northern Ireland as a weapon to gain leverage in free trade talks. We must give the Government the tools to push the EU in the direction of agreeing a strong free trade agreement. The Bill seeks to do just that, and I will support it unamended.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a Unionist. I believe that we are stronger together and I want a functioning UK internal market, but it must be one that is based on respect, on partnership and on consent—the very principles that underpinned the devolution settlement that I and my party have proudly supported for the past few decades. That settlement respects our different histories, cultures, languages and perspectives, but couples those with the pooled benefits of working together. To undermine and disrespect that settlement, which is underpinned by multiple referendums and the Good Friday agreement, is both a breach of trust and deeply dangerous.
On Northern Ireland specifically, let us not forget that it was this Prime Minister who personally negotiated with the Taoiseach on the Wirral and gave his word to the Taoiseach and all the communities of Northern Ireland, so to renege on those commitments now is both dangerous and devoid of moral principle, quite apart from the fact that it also imperils the Government’s stated wider goals for so-called global Britain such as a US trade deal. As Nancy Pelosi said, “What were they thinking?” All the chumminess of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with President Trump will not circumvent the United States Congress.
The other fundamental issue at stake is international law and the rule of law. I commend what the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), said. Clauses 42, 43 and 45 are, in his words, not a clarification, but a contradiction, not only of our commitment to international law, but of the very principle of the rule of law, for which Britain has stood as a beacon for many centuries. That saw us being instrumental in the founding of the United Nations, which has its 75th anniversary this year. The first General Assembly took place across the square from here. We stood for the rule of law in the establishment of the global human rights regime, the International Criminal Court and a rules-based financial and trading system, let alone the defence of our own interests from the Falklands to Gibraltar. We ask Iran to abide by its nuclear commitments, the Communist party of China to adhere to the Sino-British joint declaration and Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine or take responsibility for poisoning its citizens or using chemical weapons on the soil of this country, or when we rightly support the prosecution of those who committed genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda and now in the case of the Rohingya or the Uyghurs.
This goes well beyond Brexit. We all have our views on Brexit and the Prime Minister’s failure to produce an oven-ready deal. It is about Britain and the type of country we want to be: whether we want to be one that upholds the rule of law and standards, and stands as a beacon for democracy and rule of law in the world, or whether we want to become a pariah. I know that there are many Conservative women and men of courage who say things in the corridors of this place. The question is whether they will stand by their consciences in the vote tonight.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
We should not be here today debating the Bill, not because it is wrong but because it should not be necessary. We entered into an agreement with the European Union in good faith and it is a shame that that has not been reciprocated. Using third country listings, which should be a formality, as leverage on state aid and fisheries policy is not negotiating in good faith. Does the EU believe that its own rules and standards are not good enough now? Those are the rules and standards that we currently operate under. The EU knows them well, although it should be said that it is not always the best at following them.
We must now be explicit: Northern Ireland is not on the table, nor are the people who live there. They never have been. We will not accept the blockading of agriculture within our own country. The Bill is about making the choice very clear: Canada or Australia. The EU told us that the Canada deal was on the table, so what has suddenly changed?
The Bill gives us the option of protecting our internal markets and the status of Northern Ireland as an equal partner in this United Kingdom, not as a bargaining chip or an afterthought. I hope we never have to use it, but we owe it to the people of this country to make the provisions. We must stand in solidarity with the people of Northern Ireland and our hon. Friends in the Chamber from Northern Ireland to protect the status of the Union and the Belfast agreement. We will not allow the EU to divide us.
If the Opposition want us chained to EU rules and to make concessions on fisheries and state aid, they should say that. There is an old saying that starts with the phrase, “Give a man a fish”. Unfortunately, some would give a man as many fish as he wants. We should not run the risk of a blockade on agriculture between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps the EU wants to cut off its nose to spite its face, whatever the cost to itself and its economies at this difficult time. Perhaps it wants huge tariffs on our lamb, our pork and our beef, though I doubt it. It knows the risks and that, if my hon. Friends will excuse the term, the “steaks” are too high. That is why the Bill is so vital.
The European Union needs to learn that Northern Ireland and our precious Union are off the table. Our Opposition now need to come off the fence. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and urge others in the Chamber to do the same.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is difficult to know where to start with the Bill, so numerous are the egregious assumptions, the pitfalls and the Trojan horses lurking within it, so I will be brief and specific.
For Wales, the Bill is damaging without precedent, emerging fully fledged as the single biggest sustained assault yet to threaten devolution and our powers. It scorns two referenda and seeks to overturn the reiterated will of the Welsh people, not only weakening the powers of the Senedd, but explicitly reserving new powers to this place.
This Bill would render Wales powerless to stop low-quality produce, such as chlorinated chicken, flooding our supermarkets and undercutting Welsh farmers by being cheaper. This Bill would permit a 21st-century Tryweryn by giving Westminster more spending powers directly over water infrastructure. It would invalidate “buy local” policies in Wales by making it illegal to place goods from another part of the UK at a disadvantage compared with local goods in Wales.
The Conservative party would hold the whip hand over our Senedd’s attempts to protect our NHS against privatisation through damaging trade deals. The Bill holds up the spectre of no trade deal with the UK due to the Prime Minister breaking international law, which would wreak havoc on businesses already suffering the effects of covid-19. It could force Wales to accept abuses of animal welfare and food production, with the Senedd powerless to block such produce from entering our markets if they were to be tolerated in other parts of the UK, and who is even speaking for the future of the port of Holyhead?
Whatever some Conservative Members like to say, devolution is no experiment; it lives and breathes in Wales. Our democracy has been growing in the last two decades and more, in confidence and in power, and our wings will not be clipped. Plaid Cymru will stand up for our powers and our Senedd every step of the way, and we will not be supporting this Bill.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I would like to start by saying that the Government are right to bring this Bill forward. It protects the Union of the United Kingdom, safeguards Northern Ireland and paves the way for the return of many of our laws from Brussels. There has been a lot of talk in the media and from the Opposition about the supposed illegal nature of this Bill if it becomes law, but this Bill does not itself break international law. Many commentators seem to think that passing the Bill means that we are immediately breaching the withdrawal agreement, but the Bill is simply a safeguard in case no trade agreement is reached with the EU. Should Ministers end up using the powers made available to them under this Bill, the withdrawal agreement could indeed be broken, but it is clear that this is very much the last resort.
Let us face it: most EU member states are not squeaky clean on these issues. On Thursday 10 September, the European Court of Auditors reported that 15 EU states had breached EU rules in agreeing bilateral commercial deals with China that it has identified as having both political and economic risks, as well as having violated EU rules by bypassing the European Commission before they completed those trade deals. It is this level of hypocrisy and double standards that I and the people of West Bromwich East recognised prior to casting our votes in 2016, and it is what spurred 68% of my constituents to vote to leave. As has been made obvious throughout these negotiations, it is the EU that is not for turning.
I have spoken before about this level of hypocrisy, both in this Chamber and to Mr Barnier himself when he appeared before the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union. On 5 May, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the European Central Bank’s 2015 policy to buy bonds as part of its quantitative easing stimulus package was not covered by its mandate. The German courts ruled that they had the ability to determine when and if Germany is subordinate to EU law. Mr Barnier dismissed my points. He said it was unfortunate, but not relevant to Brexit, but it most certainly is because, for the first time in history, a national court refused to submit to the European Court of Justice as a member state. So why, as an independent state, should the UK be subject to EU law in our future relationship, while Germany seems to believe its domestic courts can supersede ECJ rulings on monetary policy?
The EU does not recognise this hypocrisy, but my constituents do, so if the EU does not like this Bill, there is a very simple solution. It should drop its arbitrary red lines, get around the table in a good spirit and do a trade deal that we can accept. The fact that we have to go to these lengths to protect the Union of the UK further highlights the absurdity of the situation and why we voted to leave. I would urge all Members in this place to put the Union of the United Kingdom above the European Union and pass this Bill tonight.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
By rushing through this legislation, this Government are treating the people of Leicester and the entire British public with utter contempt. Perhaps more than any election in recent memory, the 2019 general election was decided by a single issue. The Prime Minister promised to get Brexit done, and his party boasted time and again about an oven-ready deal that would settle the divisive issue of Brexit for good. “Very good”, “great”, “wonderful”, “fantastic” —those were just some of the words that the Prime Minister used during the general election campaign to describe the Brexit deal, which he is now openly willing to break international law in order to rewrite.
This is an agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated and signed himself, yet he now says that it contains grave problems that could break up our country. I do not know of any instance in which a Government have openly admitted to flouting their central election promise less than a year into their Administration. This is an unprecedented failure that raises serious questions about the Government’s entire mandate. Sadly, it comes as no real surprise. This Government are the embodiment of elitist double standards, where it is one rule for them and another for everyone else.
The Prime Minister is apparently not satisfied with misleading the public once by claiming that his half-baked deal was oven-ready. In addition, his Government are now being dishonest about the reasons why the deal must be changed. The issues of state aid and customs declarations are not a revelation but were repeatedly and explicitly spelled out to the Government last year, not least by their confidence and supply partners, the DUP. In this House, we cannot risk the sanctity of the Good Friday agreement or threaten peace on the island of Ireland, yet that is what this legislation proposes to do.
Why? This self-inflicted crisis is either a counterproductive negotiating tactic or a pathetic attempt to distract from this Government’s calamitous record over the last few months. After all, this Government have overseen the worst coronavirus death rate of any European country. Boris Johnson and his Ministers are used to U-turning—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister and his Ministers are used to U-turning, but tearing up their own international—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, but we have to move on, and please remember not to refer to other Members by their names.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I agree with the people of Ashfield who tell me that British Members of Parliament should act in the best interests of the UK and not the EU. Let us face it: the EU has negotiated in bad faith throughout, and we need to protect ourselves by showing strong leadership when dealing with the EU. We have a proud tradition of standing up for ourselves in Europe, and be in no doubt: there are other European countries looking at us right now for leadership.
This time last year, I was just a normal member of the public watching this place on the telly, shouting and screaming at these green Benches because of the deadlock and the daily nonsense we had to put up with. Well, I am here now, and the people of Ashfield will be listened to. On 31 December, we will lose rules that have regulated the home nations for the past 45 years, and this legislation will ensure that we retain internal trade, which hundreds of jobs in Ashfield depend on. Business leaders in Ashfield and Eastwood tell me that they cannot go into next year with unnecessary barriers for business and additional costs for consumers. They need certainty, and this oven-ready Bill provides certainty.
We are at a critical moment in ensuring that we have a prosperous future post Brexit, and we need a system in place that allows a free market in goods and services for all four nations in the UK. This Bill allows that. This Bill will protect jobs and encourage growth across the whole of the United Kingdom, while allowing Northern Ireland unfettered access to the rest of the UK. I cannot understand why anyone would not be in favour of it.
Our Prime Minister is right to put our country first, and he is right to try to secure trade for the UK. I strongly believe that he has our best interests at heart and I back him 100%. We voted to leave and he is making sure that we do so on our terms while putting the whole of the UK first. Once again, it is disappointing to see the Opposition oppose what the British people want. Perhaps they need to speak to some real people, not their mates in the Tea Room reading The Guardian. By real people I mean people like those in Ashfield, which is now a safe Tory seat.
There is nothing illegal about bringing this Bill to Parliament. We voted to leave to take back control and to make our own laws, which is what we are doing right now. Members of this House need to decide where their loyalties lie. Is it with the EU or with the United Kingdom? On behalf of the people of Ashfield and Eastwood, my loyalties are with the UK.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I first raised the issue of the Northern Ireland border on the Monday after the referendum—I have skin in the game, with family on both sides of the border. I have watched every twist and turn of events since. I despair at the language, at the deep ignorance, at the disregard for fragile settlements and for the 1.9 million people who live there who, frankly, deserve better.
The Tories got themselves caught up in a toxic triangle of the ERG Brexit, the differential rules across the Union and their obligations under the Belfast Good Friday agreement, and the Prime Minister chose his party. He did so through the protocol and now we need to make it work, because he agreed the differential rules across his precious Union.
I take a lot of interest in the constitutional settlement across these islands. I am vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and I have visited many of those legislatures: in Edinburgh; Cardiff; Belfast; Dublin; Jersey; Guernsey; Sark and the Falklands. Those places reflect their history as part of the United Kingdom family. They take great pride in it and in what we do, and they are watching.
I read the White Paper in July with some dismay. In the past two decades in particular our constitution has changed, but after reading that White Paper it felt as if nothing had changed in 200 years. The Acts of Union that got us to this place did not just happen: they were violent; they were disputed; and they involved an awful lot of money and land passing hands. There are different readings of our history, which has resulted in many years of debate across these islands. It is an evolving dynamic situation and one that is actually very precious and it is something of which we need to be mindful.
I am also a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. This summer, we expressed our great reservations about the Bill, particularly with regard to the speed of the consultation and the constitutional aspects. It is primarily an economic Bill, but it is also deeply constitutional. We have asked for an independent monitoring body to report directly to the House of Commons, as we are concerned about the provisions in the Bill and the need to take account of the intergovernmental relations that are coming.
Last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared before the Committee and we were told that the Dunlop review would be published before the Bill hits the statute book at the end of this year. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse. It would have been much better to have these discussions and a respect for the common frameworks before bringing this Bill forward. The Government need to dial down the rhetoric. They need to get back to the negotiating table, and they need to treat this Parliament and the devolved legislatures with much greater respect.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I will not spend what precious minutes I have talking about what the people voted for in December, because, frankly, the mandate given to us by the British people should already be reverberating around the Chamber. The mandate was clear: we were expected to leave the European Union. Certainly, as a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, I have an obligation to do everything that I can to protect the integrity of the Union.
I do not think that we can ignore the context of this Bill. We are in the midst of a negotiation. In fact, we are quite near the end of it; we are almost there. It is a negotiation that both parties entered into in good faith and it was a reciprocal obligation. Clearly, the European Union is not acting in good faith, and, naturally, it will do everything in its own interests. Why would it not? It will want to do everything that it can to make it harder for us to do a deal, but threatening the integrity of our Union is not negotiation in good faith and it goes just too far.
Too often, I hear that the EU is some noble entity—as is so often argued not only in many parts of the Chamber, but across the country—but it is one that has no objection to overturning the mandate of the people when it does not get what it wants. It has a track record that is anything but noble, but that is not us. This Bill protects the Union and also says that Northern Ireland is part of our Union and is not a negotiating football. Our job is to strengthen the hands of our negotiating team. This Bill is a plan B, but it is a plan B that says we will not be bullied. It is a plan B that says that this is one mandate that the European Union cannot ignore.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Labour party stands for the rule of law. We stand for the international rules-based system. We stand for peace in Northern Ireland and the settlement that has lasted for 22 years, and we stand for keeping promises to the British people, which then go on to be enshrined in British law. That prompts the question: what do Conservative MPs stand for anymore if they are prepared to break promises on all three of those areas? Why is what they are promising different now from what they promised in a general election—an oven-ready deal, a deal that was the easiest in human history? What changed? What went so wrong? Why are they shouting for more time and saying that they did not have enough time then when they were telling us then that that was all the time they needed and that they did not need to spend any longer scrutinising the legislation, which suddenly they find to have flaws?
There is a serious lack of trust and credibility, as we can see around the world and across these islands, as a result of the behaviour of this Government, supported by far too many of their Back Benchers so far this evening. We heard a Cabinet Minister say at the Dispatch Box last week, in a breathtaking, brazen way, that it was okay to break international law in a “specific and limited way”. It is breaking the law, whether it is in a specific and limited way or not, and that is the reality.
The withdrawal agreement, of which the Northern Ireland protocol is part, is part of the answer to guaranteeing the peace that has been so sacrosanct for the last 22 years. The Government are in denial. They are pretending that it is the opposite. They are pretending that what they said last year was the way of defending the peace is no longer true, and it simply does not stack up.
What of state aid? Today we hear of a deal being done with Japan—that is good news—but with a completely different state aid regime from the one that the Government say they want with the EU. They cannot operate two different state aid regimes. It will not work. When is the penny going to drop for them?
As for standards, the Bill undermines farmers. It undermines our animal welfare standards. It undermines the devolution settlement and it lacks the scrutiny, just as the Trade Bill did before and continues to do—so, too, with this Bill. Ministers will be able to act as they want. This is a bunch of incompetents and chancers at their worst, and they need to think again.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
It is my understanding that the Government have done nothing illegal in putting this Bill before Parliament. After all, debating and amending Bills is the purpose of this place. For the Government to bring this Bill before Parliament for it to be scrutinised, amended and put through only reaffirms the sovereignty of Parliament. As the withdrawal Act reasserts the sovereignty of Parliament, it would be flawed to conclude that the laying of this Bill breaks any law.
Furthermore, right hon. and hon. Members should remind themselves that the reasoning behind the Bill is to protect the greatest Union of nations that has ever existed. In 2016, it was the people of that Union who voted to leave the European Union in a referendum. They did not vote to be broken up. My constituents in Don Valley voted overwhelmingly for our country to leave and re-establish our place in the world as a sovereign, independent state once again. The European Union needs to accept that. After all, it was only yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition wrote in The Sunday Telegraph that “both sides” should
“hunker down in good faith and break the logjam.”
Unfortunately, after recent reports from our own negotiating team, the EU does not appear to be conducting negotiations in any form of good faith. It is due to this lack of good faith from the EU that the Government, and rightly so, have formulated this Bill to protect the Union. While I understand the reasons why some hon. and right hon. Members have reservations about the Bill, it is the best way for the Government to send a clear message to the European Union that we are serious about protecting the internal market.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I watched this House debate our withdrawal from the EU and tear itself apart in front of the eyes of the country, the European Union and the world. It was this chaos that strengthened the European Union’s position and led it to pressure the then Government to sign up to a withdrawal agreement that was rejected three times by this House. We must not let this happen again. Most Members, including me, still want to deal with the European Union, yet only by uniting behind this Bill can we sufficiently strengthen our negotiating team’s position. I fear that if the European Union yet again sees this place divided, it will carry on acting in bad faith and continue to act unreasonably. I therefore urge hon. and right hon. Members to support the Bill so that this Parliament can show unity, protect the Union, and uphold the will of the British people.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This is a deeply shameful moment for our country—showing how far this toxic Government are willing to threaten peace, erode co-operation and trust, and strip devolved Governments of their decision-making powers. How easy they find it to dangle the safety and security of our fragile and covid-hit economies, businesses and livelihoods. How unashamed this Government appear when faced with risking Britain’s reputation and breaking international law. I stand here speaking for my constituents in Cardiff North, who are aghast at this Government’s behaviour.
This Bill should actually be about how the internal market works, but it is instead a full attack on democracy—on the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who have voted for devolution several times over. We need an efficient, functioning internal market, but this Bill does not just threaten more than two decades of devolution: it rips right through the devolution settlements without consent. It is a power-grab preventing Wales from imposing its own standards on goods and services, leading inevitably to a race to the bottom, undermining the people of Wales and their democratic rights and overriding the Welsh Government in acting in their best interests. This issue should be determined by the Welsh people and those they elect to the Senedd. The Government are preventing a common framework and stealing powers from Wales, riding roughshod over the Welsh Government’s right to set food standards and to create laws on single-use plastics, animal welfare standards and the environment, to name but a few. It is simply an assault on the people of Wales.
I will continue to fight for my constituents in Cardiff North against this blatant power-grab, against the dilution of rights and standards, and against a Bill that breaks international law. It does not just steal powers: it robs the Welsh people of a way of life and values that we have come to expect. The people of Wales and the people of Cardiff North deserve better, and that is why I will be voting against this Bill tonight.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
We have heard time and again tonight that the people are watching and our reputation is on the line. I could not agree more: the people of the world are watching and our reputation is on the line. But the people who are watching are asking whether we are a sovereign independent nation. Do we have a reputation for upholding the will of the people, or do we want to be shackled to the European Union—a body that our public have, time and again, voted in one way or another to make us leave? Are we willing to be subservient? Are we willing to backslide against our own voters? Are we so ashamed of our own country that we cannot stand on our own two feet?
That is what the Bill is about: standing on our own two feet. It is about our internal market and, yes, it about the Union. It is about the most successful Union ever in the world: the United Kingdom—that Union of four great nations. It is not about the failed ideology of the European Union—a failed organisation that is willing not to play with a straight bat, that is going against its word and that is willing to break up our Union for the sake of itself. That is not playing things straight.
The European Union reminds me of a spoilt child in the playground that we do not want to play with anymore. Instead of allowing us to borrow their ball, they will happily break our ball. They will happily break up our United Kingdom. All Members of the House have to realise who we are dealing with. We are not dealing with people who are treating us equally. These are people—an organisation—who are willing to sacrifice our country, our very essence, for their own project.
The European Union is perfectly entitled to do that, because it is fighting for its own members’ rights, but I am here to fight for the people of Rother Valley. I am here to fight for the rights of the people of England. I am here to fight for the rights of the United Kingdom of our four countries. I am not here to represent the European Union. I am not the hon. Member for Brussels East or for Warsaw West. I am here to represent the people of Rother Valley, because they want a United Kingdom and they want to leave the European Union.
This opposition and this disunity is no more than people once again saying, “You don’t know what you voted for. You are too stupid to negotiate. You can’t dothis.” And I say no. We voted again and again for our country, and again and again the Opposition—the Labour party, in hock with the SNP, who of course want to break up our country—are willing to destroy everything.
Alexander Stafford
It is our country. We had the Acts of Union and a referendum to have it our country. We are one family. Just like when we fall out with our nephews or nieces, we are still family. We have disagreements. I will tell hon. Members who is not a part of the family: the European Union. We have had the divorce Bill—we have divorced it and we are going our own free way. We need to be united together against the European Union and its backsliding, and say, “We are one country. We are a proud nation, and together we will go forward as one United Kingdom.”
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the Bill. It is of concern to many in the Jarrow constituency. Whether the constituents of Jarrow voted to leave or remain, the majority of them want the Government to get on with securing the best possible deal with the EU. They want a deal that governs future trade and relations, and one that protects and promotes jobs, employment rights and peace in Northern Ireland. I share that view.
I am disappointed that the Government are stalling over their Brexit deal. It is extremely frustrating, when we were told that the UK and the EU were so close to agreeing an oven-ready Brexit deal and that progress was being made on the outstanding issues. The Prime Minister is willing to tear up the withdrawal agreement in preparation for a no-deal end to the transition period. That would be an absolute disaster. The Government are no strangers to U-turns, but tearing up an international agreement that they negotiated has to be a new low.
We do not have time for this. We are in the middle of a public health emergency and an economic crisis. The Government need to stop frustrating their deal so that we can all focus our efforts on tackling the coronavirus crisis. A competent Government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions they intended to go back on. Or did the Government just not read the small print? For the Government to openly flout international law tells me that we are in dangerous territory. Just as the Prime Minister is no stranger to a U-turn, he is no stranger to breaking the law, as we saw last year with the unlawful shutting down of Parliament.
We may need a strong internal market, but this should have been a straightforward piece of legislation. Instead, it has caused chaos in the party of Government, it risks our international reputation and it advocates breaking international law. For those reasons, among others, I cannot support it and will vote against it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Our Union benefits us all, and I support those measures in the Bill that strengthen our Union, support our businesses, and create more opportunities for those living and working in the UK. However, several clauses in part 5 cause me great concern, and I wish to lay out my thoughts and concerns to the House.
Parliament is sovereign. The critical question is not whether Parliament “can” do this, but whether it “should”. Parliament can, if it wills, create, amend, or rescind any domestic legislation or, as we are discussing today, break an international treaty enshrined in domestic legislation. It is not unimaginable that there may be situations where that is necessary, such as in response to a national crisis or a dire emergency. However, such a decision must never be taken lightly, and we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid that, so important is the rule of law and our commitment to international obligations. The consequences of breaching an international treaty are grave, and if we do that, or even propose to do it, not only must our justification be clear, but it must also be the last thing we do after we have exhausted all arbitration and legal recourse. Such action must be taken in extremis, not pre-emptively.
We trade and benefit from our international reputation. The United Kingdom has an old and proud democracy. My constituency, Runnymede and Weybridge, is the birth place of the Magna Carta and the rule of law. As we go out into the world as global Britain, seeking to make new trade deals, we will depend on our reputation more than ever. That means respecting the rule of law. If we damage our reputation, we will hamstring global Britain and our ability to seize the opportunities that Brexit presents.
I know that my neighbour, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Government, are mindful of the issues I have raised about our international reputation and obligations, the difficulty we will have in calling out Russia and China when they breach their commitments, and the importance of squaring that with protecting our Union. I ask them to think again about a resolution to the issues we face. I hope they see the constructive nature and spirit of my words, and hear the concerns of many fellow Members across the House.
More than anything we need a Canada-style free trade deal with the EU, which the Government are pushing hard to get. With or without a free trade agreement with the EU, the UK needs this Bill. There is a lot of good in it, and I want to support it, but for the reasons I have laid out, I regret I cannot support it unamended.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This Bill is an outrage. We are thumbing our nose at international law, our Irish friends and EU allies, even while still in negotiations with them. It would be farcically funny, were it not so deadly serious. The Prime Minister has been double dealing not only with our international partners but with ordinary people, because the oven-ready deal he sold has been shown to be nothing more than a pig in a poke. That the Bill has been introduced, never mind that it will almost certainly be passed by the Chamber, is extraordinary. It is hugely damaging to the reputation of the UK, and it speaks starkly to the drastic weaknesses and feeble checks and balances at the heart of the UK constitution.
The Bill lays bare the Government’s attitudes to devolution and democratic accountability—in short, they do not care for it one jot. The Government pretend they are merely adopting an EU-style approach to creating a single market, but they are doing nothing of the sort. Where we should have had consent and co-operation, we have imposition; instead of subsidiarity, we have centralisation; instead of minimum standards, we have the starting gun for a race to the bottom; instead of protecting devolved powers, devolved powers are being reserved or utterly undermined.
The Bill speaks more broadly to the direction of travel that we face in the United Kingdom. Instead of a partnership of equals, it is “Westminster knows best.” Yet again, one Parliament—this Parliament—is unilaterally altering the competencies of another, and giving Ministers the power to do so again and again at the stroke of a pen. That does not happen in other western democracies where there would be double majorities, super majorities, and referendums before one Parliament or Government could take powers from another. Perhaps the one positive from the Bill is that it makes plain like never before that the constitution of the British state is not fit for purpose, and it flags up the real dangers that lie ahead if Scotland remains part of it.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The UK has left the European Union, and we all agree on the need for clear terms for the UK’s single market to operate effectively. Many, although not all, of us believe in a United Kingdom, but we should all value devolution and its contribution to the rich tapestry of our country. The Good Friday agreement, whose groundwork was begun under a Conservative Government and fulfilled under a Labour one, has rightly been a source of admiration around the world, as has our adherence to the rule of law. I want to read out a few lines that have really resonated with me.
“The rule of law is the most precious asset of any civilised society…which makes sure that when those who hold power abuse it, they can be checked”.
Those words are from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and in a few moments’ time he is going to urge hon. and right hon. Members to vote for a piece of legislation that he and the Government accept seeks to break international law. How on earth did the Government get in this place? That is a question that many hon. and right hon. Members have asked in the Chamber throughout the debate.
We have heard some incredibly powerful contributions today, and it would probably be unwise to single out any of them, but let me mention just a few. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) invoked John Hume as having been a pathfinder for peace in Northern Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said that breaking the law was something that this country just did not do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) spoke about the gigantic act of self-harm that we are embarking on, masquerading as a negotiating strategy. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) spoke about the danger of watering down our standards. And of course, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made a powerful speech. He and I have history: he roundly defeated me in the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election in 2006, but I did not hold that against him. He is held in high esteem on both sides of this House. He is motivated by trying to get the Government to move, and I hope that they do.
However, whatever the Bill lays down about when the provisions come into force, the very act of Parliament passing this legislation is in itself a breach of international law. That is because it breaches article 5 of the Government’s withdrawal agreement—an international treaty—by going against the Government’s commitment to refrain from measures that jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the withdrawal agreement. It is important to understand this, because this is merely the starter for the law-breaking that this Government envisage. As we know from the Prime Minister’s speech today, the main course on GB-NI trade is still to come, presumably in the Finance Bill. So hon. and right hon. Members should be under no illusions. If they vote for this Bill tonight, they will find themselves on a slippery slope, being asked to vote for yet another law-breaking Bill. We say that it is time to draw a line and stand up for the rule of law.
There is a certain degree of irony in all this. Today we are asking the public to adhere to much stricter guidelines about who they can meet and where. Breaking those laws can result in police action. Indeed, this morning in a radio interview, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), said that if people were concerned about others breaking the law, they should consider phoning the non-emergency police number. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you could give some guidance to the House. If the British public observe this Government breaking the law, who should they telephone? A party that once treasured institutions, traditions, conventions and the rule of law now trashes them in plain sight with the whole world looking on in despair. This was once the party that claimed to be the party of law and order, but Sir Robert Peel would not recognise the modern Conservative party promoting the Bill this evening.
The Government say that they have no choice, so let me directly address the latest claims that the Government make. The Prime Minister’s project fear speaks of food blockades and that the Northern Ireland protocol could enable “a foreign power” to break up our country. The question has to be asked: how could any responsible Prime Minister sign up to such an agreement, campaign on it throughout a general election and ratify it as an international treaty if that were the case? Is the message to the House and the country that the Prime Minister was too incompetent to notice the contradictions? Or that he noticed them and simply did not care? And if that really was the case, why then does this legislation only address trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain? The Bill even fails under the terms of the Prime Minister’s own arguments. He has not thought this through.
Or is the real justification for all this to serve other political purposes? Is this some unorthodox negotiating strategy, trashing our good name in the process? Reputations are hard won but they are easily lost, and that is what the Government are embarking upon this evening. In doing so, they are using Northern Ireland as a political football. That is wrong—so wrong. Not one of the explanations to justify the Bill this evening speaks well of the Prime Minister’s integrity, and it does not speak well of his judgment either.
I urge the Government to take a step back. It is not too late. Ministers will have heard this afternoon and this evening from hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House urging them to take a step back, think again and not go down this route. It is not too late. I urge both sides, the United Kingdom and the European Union, to drop the rhetoric, stop the posturing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central has argued this afternoon, start negotiating properly and take this seriously. That message is for both sides in these negotiations.
Let me end by saying this. I have spoken in many debates in this House in the 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, but few have had the gravity or the implications of today’s debate on the Bill that we are voting on this evening. Every living Prime Minister—five of them in total, three of them Conservatives—tells us that this Bill does serious damage to our standing in the world. The two former Prime Ministers who were the architects of the Good Friday agreement, so vital for our United Kingdom and peace within the United Kingdom, warn us of the dangers of what the Government are doing. Every Member of this House should heed those warnings and listen to those words. No one knows more than those former Prime Ministers the risks that we are taking and the risks of the slippery slope that we are embarking on. Around the world, people are looking at us and asking who we really are. What kind of country do we want to be on 1 January next year, outside the orbit of the European Union? Let us stand up for our proudest traditions. Let us stand up for the Britain that I know and love—a Britain that stands proud on the world stage and stands there with moral authority; a country that cares about the rule of law, here and abroad, and stands up for it. I urge Members in all parts of the House to support our reasoned amendment this evening and vote against this squalid Bill.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who always makes her case with clarity, with force and from principle. I know that everyone who listened to her speech will have recognised the powerful case that she was making. I did not agree with everything that she said, but I am sure everyone in the House recognises that she is a strong and effective advocate for her party and her principles.
I thank all those who spoke in this debate. We had more than 60 speeches, all of them I think contributing to the reputation of this House. We had very thoughtful speeches of course from a variety of Select Committee Chairs and also some very passionate speeches, including, as the hon. Lady mentioned, from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Those two representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies took passionately different views on the merits of this legislation. It is that very passion and, indeed, the importance of democracy, not just to Northern Ireland but to the whole United Kingdom, that means we should all try to look calmly at the Bill before voting tonight and before looking at the various amendments that may be tabled in Committee.
It is important that I remind the House of what the Bill does and what it does not do, as well has how, together, we can address the legitimate concerns that have been raised in good faith by hon. Members. The Bill protects, enhances and strengthens our Union and the prosperity of all our people. It is all the more crucial that we take these steps as we recover from the dreadful covid-19 pandemic. We need to work together as one United Kingdom, displaying solidarity and resolve, to ensure that the prosperity that we generate is shared for all the people we represent. It is a fact that each of the parts of the United Kingdom trade more with each other than with anyone else. It is a fact that each of the peoples of the United Kingdom rely more on each other than anyone else. All the peoples of the United Kingdom are stronger when we work together, act together and stick together.
No one summed up the essence of the Bill better than my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). He said it is a Bill about jobs and businesses. As he reminded us, some 545,000 jobs in Scotland rely on the integrity of our internal market. He reminded us that, coincident with this Bill, there is a power surge for all the devolved Administrations, with hundreds of powers going to the devolved Assemblies to strengthen devolution. He also stressed that the importance of devolution was that all our citizens could see our Governments working together—the United Kingdom Government working with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Senedd in Wales and, of course, the Scottish Government.
Michael Gove
Not at this stage.
The Bill does not walk away from negotiations with the European Union. Those negotiations go on with David Frost and Michel Barnier and with myself and my friend Maroš Šefčovič in the Joint Committee. We are committed to making a success of the negotiations. The Bill is not about abandoning the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is there. We are safeguarding the rights of 3 million EU citizens in the UK, just as EU nations are safeguarding the rights of 1 million UK citizens in the EU.
The Bill is certainly not about declining to implement the Northern Ireland protocol. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim reminded us, with some regret on his part, we are erecting border-inspection posts for sanitary and phytosanitary checks in Northern Ireland, even now. We are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in helping Northern Ireland businesses to be ready for the new processes that come with the protocol. If we were not serious about implementing the protocol, we would not be incurring the inevitable resistance, from some, as we see those border-inspection posts erected and traders being prepared for the implementation of the protocol. The idea that we are abandoning it is simply for the birds.
The Bill is also not a threat to devolution. I must turn to my old friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). He gave the longest speech in this debate and, like all his speeches, it was true to the John Lewis guarantee: no argument was knowingly undersold. In his gusto to make his arguments and the lyricism with which he made his case, I fear he obscured one or two details. He talked about the threat to water in Scotland, but the Bill and the schedule are clear that water is excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He talked about the threat to the NHS, a UK institution, but if we look at the schedule to the Bill, we see that healthcare services are excluded.
I am perfectly happy to spend more time with the right hon. Gentleman, because it is always a pleasure to take him through the Bill, to calm him and to point out the ways in which it not only strengthens the Union but respects devolution. And devolution is what, indeed, it does respect—
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
No.
The other thing about the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber is that sometimes in his speeches he employs the Humpty Dumpty principle: a word means what he wants it to mean, whatever else the rest of us understand by it. He talked about defending devolution; well, what is devolution? It is two Governments working together—the Scottish Government and the UK Government; the Welsh Government and the UK Government. He says he wants to protect devolution, but how does he want to do that? By going for independence, smashing the devolution settlement, separating this family of nations and undermining the prosperity of the people who he and I love in Scotland. Even though he spoke at length, and lyrically, when he was challenged he could not give one single example of any power that the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament currently has that is not being retained. Indeed, powers are increasing.
Let me turn briefly to the speech given by the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I think we can all agree that it was an excellent speech. He raised a number of legitimate concerns and fair questions, which I hope to address. He talked about the importance of common frameworks, and we agree on that, which is why progress has been made on them. Indeed, one of those common frameworks specifically covers food standards and provides reassurance that the fears that he and others have about a race to the bottom will not be realised. It is also the case, as is acknowledged widely, including in his speech, that common frameworks are important but they are not enough. Progress on common frameworks is a good thing, but we also need legislation to underpin the internal market overall. I also noted his passionate commitment in his speech to getting Brexit done, and I am pleased to welcome him to the ranks of born-again Brexiteers.
One thing the right hon. Gentleman will know—indeed, the Chairman of the Select Committee on the future relationship with the European Union, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), repeated the point—is that the EU has not always been the constructive partner that all of us might have hoped. In excellent speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) pointed out that the EU has not always done what we might have hoped it would do. The EU is bound by a system of what are called autonomous processes to ensure that we have equivalence on data and financial services, and that we are listed as a third country for the export of food and other products of animal origin. There has been no progress on any of those. We were told that we would get a Canada deal, but that is not on the table. The Prime Minister has reminded us that the threat on third country listing could mean an embargo on the transport of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The EU has also insisted on an interpretation of an end to the common fisheries policy that would mean that they could carry on fishing in our waters just as before, even though we had pledged to take back control. I am not a diplomat but let me try to put it in diplomatic language: some people might think that the EU had not been negotiating absolutely 100% in line with what all of us might have hoped. Given that, it is important that we redouble our efforts to seek agreement but that we are also prepared for any eventuality.
Importantly, it is not just me who acknowledges that the EU might not have been doing everything it should to secure agreement. As I say, the Chairman of the Select Committee made the point that there is no need for exit declarations for goods coming from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. He made the point that it is a shame that we have not got third country listing, and I agree with him—and I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds West that the EU must up its game.
It is also crucial that we recognise what this Bill seeks to do in order to ensure that we can get an appropriate resolution, and here I turn to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). He is an old friend of mine and he is on to something here. He made the point that we need to show that we are operating in a constructive spirit, and I agree. That is why we want to secure agreement through the Joint Committee, which is why we met last week. It is why Maroš Šefčovič and I have been working, setting aside our differences, in order to achieve agreement. It is also why our first recourse will be to the arbitral panel if we do have problems. We recognise, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that if we cannot secure agreement, under section 16 there are steps we can take in extremis, as a safety net, to ensure that our interests are protected. It is the case in international law that we can take those steps, if required, in order to achieve the goals we wish.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making some clear points. Will he make it absolutely clear that any breach of the withdrawal agreement will come only at the very end of a long process, at which point the only resolution in respect of keeping food flowing between GB and Northern Ireland is this Bill?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, makes an important point. It is the case that patient negotiation is the way forward. [Interruption.] No, I entirely agree with him. This time last year, we and the EU were at loggerheads. There were obstacles and roadblocks, but we negotiated with rigour, with determination and not without some bumps in the road in order to achieve progress. If we apply the same determination now as we did then, I believe that we can make progress in these negotiations, but just as last year, when we were ready to support our Prime Minister in showing steely resolve to get the best possible deal and to make sure that our negotiators had everything that they needed, so now we must back our Prime Minister and our negotiators and recognise that this safety net is a critical part of making sure that we can achieve everything that we wish. We should support the Bill this evening.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
TABLE | ||
|---|---|---|
Day | Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
First day | Clauses 28 to 39; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; other new Clauses and new Schedules relating generally to the internal market for goods and services in the United Kingdom | Six hours from the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the first day |
Second day | Clauses 46 and 47; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6 | Six hours from the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the second day |
Third day | Clause 11; Clauses 40 to 45; Clause 50; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5 | Six hours from the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the third day |
Fourth day | Clauses 1 to 10; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 to 16; Schedule 2; Clauses 17 to 27; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Parts 1 to 3; Clauses 48 and 49; Clauses 51 to 54; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill | Six hours from the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the fourth day |
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 10 together.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Intellectual Property)
That the draft Intellectual Property (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.
International Immunities and Privileges
That the draft Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
That the draft INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Investigatory Powers
That the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 April, be approved.
That 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, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
Mobile Homes
That the draft Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.
Criminal Law
That the draft Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 (Exception) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 24 June, be approved—( David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
European Statutory Instruments committee
Ordered,
That Vicky Ford and Mark Garnier be discharged from the European Statutory Instruments Committee and James Grundy and Jacob Young be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
UK Steel Industry
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity tonight to talk about some of the challenges and the opportunities facing our steel sector, both as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries along with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and the secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and on behalf of my constituents who work in Tata’s Llanwern site and Liberty Steel in Newport East.
I pay tribute to all those who work in the UK steel industry. They are a dedicated and highly skilled workforce, making world-class products.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I am proud to have spent eight hours in our local steelworks in Scunthorpe in the recess. Choosing to do it on the hottest day of the year was perhaps not my finest move, but I agree with the hon. Member that our steelworkers are incredibly hard-working, dedicated people, and it is hot and difficult work. I hope that she will join me this evening in calling for the Minister to consider setting targets for the amount of UK steel used in public projects; for steel specifications to be published using UK norms; for the long overdue steel public procurement pipeline to be published consistently; to push for other Departments to sign the UK steel charter and for Government-linked projects such as HS2—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I suspect that there might be quite a few interventions in the debate. It is only half an hour, and it is the debate of the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). I hope that any interventions will be short.
Jessica Morden
I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe for her intervention and wholeheartedly agree with what she said. I will go on to say more about that later.
Our steelmakers have a pride in and passion for making steel, despite the sacrifices they have made in difficult times—and there have been some. During the pandemic, some steelworkers have had to be furloughed as demand has dropped.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend and neighbour for bringing this important debate to the Chamber tonight. Does she agree that the UK Government must do all they can to ensure that the jobs of steelworkers across the UK are protected as we come out of the furlough scheme?
Jessica Morden
That is important for so many sectors and jobs, including the steel industry in our city.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the debate to the Chamber. This will be a short intervention. Is she aware that Northern Ireland has a strong steel industry based on many individual contractors and that consideration must also be given to supporting the subsidiary jobs and industry throughout the United Kingdom? It is not just Wales; it is Northern Ireland, Scotland and England.
Jessica Morden
It is the UK steel industry. The hon. Member makes an important point, and I hope the Minister will address it later.
Some steelworkers have had to be furloughed as demand dropped in their parts of the business, but others have continued to make the essential steel we have needed in this crisis for the beds in the Nightingale hospitals, the urgent hospital extensions, the food and drink industry and more. As hon. Members here tonight with an interest in steel know—I am pleased to see so many here tonight at this late hour, including on the Front Bench—steel is everywhere and fundamental to our lives. Steel must play a crucial part in the UK’s post-pandemic recovery. Our plants stand ready to play their part in that with the right Government support, and that is what we ask for tonight.
Like almost every other sector of the economy, the UK steel industry has been hard hit by the pandemic, with steel producers reporting that orders have fallen by around 50% since March. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor promised the British public that they would not face the crisis alone and that the Government would undertake unprecedented measures for unprecedented times. However, as of today, only one company has received vital emergency funding. There has been much talk of Project Birch, but little news. I know that the Government have been in ongoing talks with steel companies in the last month about liquidity support.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The issue is that the steel industry was not in a great place before covid, and the danger is that if we get steel being dumped by China or other countries, then we really are on the brink.
Jessica Morden
I absolutely agree and will come on to say more about that later. I know that hon. Members would appreciate an update from the Minister about how that is going and the plan to secure jobs and the future of our plants.
The UK steel sector employs about 32,000 people directly and 41,000 more through supply chains. It is estimated that these jobs pay 28% higher than the average salary. In steel strongholds like south Wales and Yorkshire, this increases to about 46% higher than the average wage. These are better-paid jobs in communities that really need them. The impact of the pandemic on our steel industry has consequences not only on a local level but on a national level. UK steel contributes a combined £5.5 billion to the UK economy and £3.2 billion to mitigating the national trade deficit through exports produced. That is because steel is a foundation industry for many other sectors: engineering, construction, transport and renewable energy, to name just a few. Steel forms the backbone of our manufacturing sector, and the industry stands ready to supply the world-class steel that will help us to build back better. This is the key message of the “Britain, we need our steel” campaign, which has been launched by the Community, Unite and GMB trade unions, to which I pay I tribute for the work they do to stand up for our steel industry in this country. I hope that all hon. Members here tonight will be actively supporting this campaign.
We need the Government to ensure that all Government Departments now sign up to the UK steel charter. I am pleased that the Welsh Government were one of the first signatories. This would commit the Government to prioritise UK steel in procurement for infrastructure projects. Back in June, the Prime Minister said that the Government will
“do absolutely everything we can…to ensure that UK steel manufacturers are at the front of the queue for the great projects that we are going to construct.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 1311.]
We will hold the Prime Minister to that.
Getting procurement right is key. There are concerns, which some of my constituents share, that any benefits from HS2 will not be greatly felt in our communities in south Wales or, indeed, those outside striking distance of the proposed route. The APPG’s “Steel 2020” report argued that Government procurement and other incentives should be used to increase domestic steel content in manufacturing and construction, as there is clearly a market opportunity. A study of future demand by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy shows that UK consumption will climb from 9.5 million tonnes of steel to 11 million tonnes by 2030—a £4 billion a year opportunity for UK producers if the right measures are in place. Currently, less than 50% of steel used in Government-funded projects is British-made. This simply must change going forward: there is much, much more to do. Phases 1 and 2 of the HS2 project combined will require 2 million tonnes of steel, including for tracks, train components, bridges, tunnels, gantries, wire and more. UK steel producers could and should provide 90% of the steel needed for HS2. This is steel that should be made here and not imported.
The broader steps for the UK Government are set out in the UK Steel paper, “Covid-19—Restart and Recovery”. Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all major infrastructure projects set minimum targets for UK steel content, and that all Government-funded projects establish a clear preference for sourcing steel from domestic producers? Will he outline the actions that he has undertaken to encourage all Government Departments to sign up to the steel charter? The Government must do what they can to create the right environment for UK steelmakers in the long term, including a UK sector deal to sit alongside the existing deals for manufacturing industries such as aerospace, construction and automotive, all of which are inherently linked to steel.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. On the automotive sector in particular, we need to concentrate on the supply of electrical steels from the Orb plant, which is of course mothballed. I understand that with £50 million of investment support from the Government, it could be resurrected in a matter of months.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Orb steelworks, which closed recently. I will expand on that at the end of my speech, if that is okay.
Change is needed to help UK businesses compete internationally, particularly on energy costs, which I and other colleagues on the APGG have been banging the drum on for a number of years now. This significant challenge for UK steel producers has not gone away. British steel producers pay the highest electricity prices in Europe—80% more for energy than their French counterparts and 62% more than German companies. This creates an enormous additional cost burden on the UK steel sector every year and hampers productivity. Will the Minister update the House on what the Department is doing to extend the indirect carbon price compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries, which is currently due to expire at the end of the year?
In response to parliamentary questions, Ministers have said that the ability of industries to compete across Europe and globally is a priority. It is now time to back up those words with action. It is vital to the sector to maintain current trade flows with key markets. A central concern for the steel industry as we get closer to January is trade with Europe.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the issue of safeguards to ensure that we can continue to sell our steel into the EU, does she agree that the UK Government should now be making a unilateral offer to suspend all trade dumping measures against EU steel coming into this country, so that we can unlock the stalemate around the trade defence measures?
Jessica Morden
I do indeed. I believe that would be a generous offer to unblock the current stalemate. On the treatment of EU exports and EU safeguards, an estimated 70% of UK steel exports—some 2.6 million tonnes a year—go to EU countries. That is 1,400 trucks and six trains a week, making it the largest export market for steel. As UK Steel has highlighted, it is crucial for our industry that the UK Government demonstrate as early as possible that they are taking steps to positively resolve the issue with UK trading partners. What progress has the Minister made on EU and UK steel safeguards? An update from him on that is urgently needed tonight.
There is also a lack of clarity about what is happening in the US-UK free trade agreement negotiations on the removal of section 232 tariffs on steel projects. Since 2018, UK steel exports to the US have fallen by 32%, so can the Minister update us on those talks too?
Finally, do we want to be a country that manufactures goods or one that just imports them? The Government’s strategy must address the present and future needs of the industry. That means providing the UK steel industry with the vital liquidity support that it needs to protect businesses.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that steel has a future in the UK. I recently visited Stocksbridge steelworks in my constituency, and some of its work is absolutely cutting-edge and high-tech. Steel is not just an industry of the past and our heritage; it is vital for our future, our research and development, and all that makes Britain a great trading nation.
Jessica Morden
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and agree entirely.
There are significant opportunities for UK steel as we begin to build back greener. The Prime Minister spoke earlier this year of a new age of opportunity in making the UK a world leader in, for example, electric vehicles. Steel will also play a vital role in the production of other green technologies, such as wind turbines, rail electrification, renewable projects, solar panels and more. If the Prime Minister wishes for the UK to be a world leader in those things, we must have an industrial strategy that puts steel at its centre.
Before its tragic closure earlier this year, Tata’s Orb steelworks in Newport was the only manufacturer of electrical steel in the UK. With the right strategy and the right investment, Orb could and should have played an instrumental part in a move to electric vehicles. We need vision from the Government to work with the industry to do that. While it may be too late for Orb, it is not too late for the Government to produce a Budget that incentivises automotive demand, so that the plants at Llanwern, with world-class steel for the automotive sector, can get involved. Steel that is manufactured in Britain also enjoys a significantly lower carbon footprint than imported steel. Not only does imported steel take more carbon dioxide than sourcing a tonne of steel domestically, but steel produced in Britain is subject to higher environmental standards than steel produced abroad.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I absolutely agree with that point. Does my hon. Friend agree that offshoring carbon emissions to China, Turkey and Iran is exactly the way we do not want to go, when we can make that steel in this country in green ways?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree entirely.
It is also vital that the Government recognise developments such as Liberty’s Greensteel hub in Newport, which uses renewable and low-carbon energy to recycle scrap steel to meet the challenges of decarbonisation and growing consumption of steel globally.
Steel can play a vital part in rebuilding Britain after the pandemic. Despite the significant challenges posed by coronavirus, the Government have a unique opportunity to create a 21st-century manufacturing sector that has a revitalised steel sector at its core, so that we can build back. However, the Government must act—something that they have been slow to do in the past. I look forward to the Minister’s comments tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this evening’s debate. She has been a passionate advocate for the UK steel industry, including in her role as co-chair of the all-party group on steel and metal-related industries. Clearly, this sector is important to the United Kingdom and testament to that is the number of colleagues who are present in the Chamber at 11 pm on a Monday night. One colleague who is unable to intervene or speak tonight is my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). Although he cannot make his voice heard in this place, he certainly does on behalf of his constituents who work in the important steel industry in his constituency.
This debate represents a welcome opportunity to discuss the UK steel sector, which will continue to play a critical role as a foundation industry as we secure our economic recovery and long-term prosperity following the impact of the coronavirus. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the steel sector provides well-paid, highly skilled jobs, as we have just heard from the hon. Lady. It also plays a key role in critical UK supply chains across many important parts of the UK economy, including automotive construction, power generation and, of course, defence.
Earlier this year, we welcomed the acquisition of British Steel by Jingye following a period of insolvency.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I just want to say that the constituents in Scunthorpe regularly mention to me the support that they receive from the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that support for other steel plants such as Celsa is vital?
Nadhim Zahawi
It certainly is and I hope that I can cover that in the time that I have left to me.
Both officials and Ministers invested considerable time and effort in closing the deal with Jingye and the planned £1.2 billion investment that will go into the operations of British Steel. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that this represents a huge vote of confidence in the UK steel industry and the high-quality steel produced here in the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding this positive outcome for British Steel prior to the pandemic, the global steel industry was already facing significant headwinds. This included demand slowing across developed economies and persistent global excess production capacity, which depresses prices and harms the profitability of UK steel producers.
In the past few days, Tata Steel has published its accounts, which show a challenging position across its UK and European operations. While it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on the performance of individual companies, I wish to reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to work very closely with the entire UK steel sector and the trade unions, and that we understand the challenges facing the industry in the UK.
While the coronavirus has come at a challenging time for the industry, we have been working intensively over this period to ensure that the UK steel industry has been able to access the support that it needs since the start of the covid-19 pandemic The Government have set out a far-reaching package of support to protect jobs, incomes and businesses across every part of the economy. Those working in the steel industry have been among the 9.6 million individuals across the country who have been able to access the job retention scheme. The scheme has protected people’s livelihoods in the industry and ensured that steel manufacturers have been able to retain high-skilled staff while managing the impact of reduced demand caused by the pandemic.
Importantly, we have worked closely with the steel industry representatives over this period to ensure that the furlough scheme—the job retention scheme—was sufficiently flexible to accommodate some of the real key asks from the industry and from the unions to meet the changing requirements of the industry as the wider situation evolved. I have been engaging personally on a regular basis with companies, trade associations, and, of course, the trade unions to gather their feedback. Direct input from the steel sector has helped to shape a number of our covid-19 support schemes. The coronavirus large business loan interruption scheme, the tax deferrals and the trade credit reinsurance scheme, which we launched with £10 billion, clearly came through as a result of that particular engagement with the industry. They were developed rapidly in response to that particular challenge faced by companies in the industry.
In addition to those far-reaching economy-wide schemes, we have committed to consider bespoke support on a last-resort basis where a viable company of strategic importance has exhausted all other options available to it. The House will be aware—the hon. Member for Newport East mentioned it—that such circumstances apply to Celsa Steel, which is a critical supplier to our construction industry. Government support in that case secured over 1,000 jobs, including 800 positions at the company’s principal site in south Wales. Commercial confidentiality prevents me from setting out further details on that case, or indeed from commenting on any discussions we have had with individual steel companies over this period. However, I hope that hon. Members agree that that is a clear signal from the Government of our continued commitment to the UK steel industry and the 30,000 individuals who are employed in the sector.
Stephen Kinnock
The support to Celsa was absolutely welcome and we certainly appreciate that, but what about Tata Steel? The Minister says he is looking for strategic importance and a viable business that will play a critical role in the future of our manufacturing sector. Surely, Tata Steel qualifies on all three counts?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman will know, because he is deeply involved with Tata Steel in his constituency, that that is absolutely right with regard to the strategic importance of Tata Steel. I hope he will forgive the fact that I will be unable to go any further at this stage because of the need to protect commercial confidentiality. Suffice to say that he is absolutely right that it ticks all those boxes.
As we transition from managing the immediate challenges presented by covid-19 to securing the long-term recovery of the UK economy, we will continue to work with representatives of the steel industry, the unions and the devolved Administrations to address the strategic challenges faced by the sector. We are committed to working collectively with those partners to shape a steel industry that is sustainable, productive and innovative. To that end, we are taking action in key areas. I want to outline a few of the priorities for UK steel companies, including on energy prices, procurement, research and innovation, and international trade.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
On energy pricing, it obviously still remains an inhibitor to our steel industry and to bringing steelmaking back to Teesside. What steps are the Government taking to improve innovation in the energy sector to bring about cleaner steelmaking?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend’s timing is impeccable, because I am just about to come on to our focus on energy and the clean steel fund. As we set out our focus on the recovery, our objective is both to boost the sector’s short-term competitiveness and to support the longer-term transformational investment that colleagues have spoken about that will drive productivity and efficiency, and support our net zero goals.
On energy prices specifically, the ability of our steel industry to compete internationally is a priority for the Government. We remain committed to minimising energy costs for business. Since 2013, the Government have provided £480 million in compensation to the steel sector to make energy costs more competitive. Moreover, we are investing £315 million in the energy transformation fund to help energy-intensive businesses such as steel companies to cut their bills and transition to a low-carbon future.
On innovation, supporting our steel industry in the UK to decarbonise and make the most of clean growth opportunities is a key priority for us. This is part of our wider agenda to put the UK at the forefront of research and innovation in the coming years. Last year, we announced two important new research and innovation programmes, which will help the steel industry in its effort to reduce emissions and support the decarbonisation of the UK economy to achieve our ambitious 2050 net zero target.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will come back to anti-dumping at the end of my remarks.
To finish my point on innovation, another £250 million —a quarter of a billion pounds—of clean steel fund will support the sector’s transition to new low-carbon technologies and processes. A £100-million low-carbon hydrogen production fund will support the deployment of low-carbon hydrogen in industry to help decarbonise a range of sectors, including steel.
Nadhim Zahawi
I want to make some headway. If there is time at the end, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Newport East rightly mentioned procurement. It is a priority for the Government to ensure that UK steel producers have the best possible chance of competing for and winning the contracts associated with our domestic infrastructure investment. We have published a steel pipeline on national infrastructure projects worth about £500 million over the next decade. For the first time, we have also published data on public sector steel procurement, which will be refreshed in the coming weeks and on an annual basis thereafter. That information serves as a testament to our ambitious plans for UK-sourced steel within our pipeline of major infrastructure projects. It will also serve as an accountability mechanism. We will work with the sector to achieve this shared aim.
We recently welcomed the commencement of construction work on the largest of these infrastructure projects, which the hon. Lady mentioned—HS2. We are keenly aware of the opportunity it represents for our domestic steel sector. The Department’s steel pipeline update from last year indicated that HS2 will require more than 2 million tonnes of steel over phases 1 and 2.
We are mindful that there are mechanisms by which we can actively support the sector to realise this opportunity and future ones within the parameters of our legal framework. To take just one example, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has signed up to the UK steel charter, which has been mentioned several times tonight. We recognise it as an important initiative, developed by industry, and we are actively encouraging other Departments to sign up. We look forward to making continued progress on the issue of procurement over the coming months.
International trade and EU exit, which were both mentioned in the debate, are huge areas of strategic significance for the UK steel industry. Overcapacity in steel production remains a global systemic challenge for the sector. We continue to work as part of the G20 global forum on steel excess capacity to address this problem. Unfair market-distorting practices have been partly to blame for the situation. We want all countries to act on and implement the recommendations agreed by G20 Ministers, and we will maintain pressure on them to do so.
In preparation for the end of the transition period, the Government have legislated for the full suite of tools permitted under the WTO to address unfair trading practices. We are working closely with the Department for International Trade to ensure that the UK has a suitable trade remedies system in place for the future to maintain the protection of our steel industry. We are also engaging with our European Commission colleagues to discuss how the steel safeguards should operate after the transition period, with the aim of preserving traditional trade flows and providing as much continuity to the industry as possible. We are committed to transitioning the definitive safeguard measures on those steel products and categories where there is a UK interest. We continue to make a strong case to the EU on behalf of the UK steel sector to ensure that appropriate tariff rate quotas are provided to UK exporters as soon as is practicably possible following the end of the transition period.
These are unprecedented times and the challenge for the UK steel industry is big. I have half a minute left, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Stephen Kinnock
Will the Minister underline our commitment to blast furnaces as a central part of the steel-making process? With the right investment, we can make the transition to hydrogen and so on, but blast furnace production is absolutely central.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make sure that, as a foundation industry, steel continues to innovate. Whether it is electric arc or other emerging technologies, such as hydrogen, which we are seeing the adoption of, we are absolutely committed to that.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Chris Elmore |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Chris Elmore |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) | Gagan Mohindra |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
James Grundy (Leigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) | Mark Tami |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | John Spellar |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) | Wendy Chamberlain |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Henry Smith (Crawley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) | Charlotte Nichols |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NO. 2) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.788).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I will start by summarising the changes to the regulations. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) (England) Regulations 2020, which I will refer to as the national regulations, came into force on 4 July. There have been five changes to the national regulations, the first of which was debated in and approved by both Houses before recess. The focus of this debate is the second amendment to the regulations.
These amendments permitted from 25 July the reopening of the following businesses and venues: indoor swimming pools, including water parks; indoor fitness and dance studios; and indoor gyms, sports courts and facilities. Alongside those changes, the Government produced supporting guidance advising that the most high-risk activities within those businesses and venues, such as saunas and steam rooms, should not reopen. Those easings did not apply to the city of Leicester boundaries and the borough of Oadby and Wigston.
We have needed to use the emergency power to amend these regulations so that we can respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by coronavirus. I know that these national regulations have caused real disruption to people’s lives. They have placed restrictions on who people can see, what they can do and where they can work. Just as the Secretary of State has the legal obligation to protect public health, he is also obligated to ease restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so.
The first three changes to the regulations opened businesses and venues that had been required to close, and covid-secure guidance was developed with industry and medical advice to ensure that they opened safely. That means that now only nightclubs, dancehalls, discotheques, sexual entertainment venues and hostess bars are required to remain closed, as they are considered to pose a high risk of transmission because of the close proximity of members of staff and customers. That shows the Government’s commitment to ensuring that restrictions are in place only as long as necessary, and an evolution in our understanding and approach to tackling the virus.
Over the summer recess, we have combined the tightening of restrictions in areas where there are outbreaks with the easing of business restrictions nationally. We have given local authorities powers to act quickly in response to local outbreaks by closing specific premises, shutting public outdoor spaces and cancelling events. We asked all councils to develop dedicated local outbreak plans, and we gave them £300 million of new funding to support that. We published the contain framework, providing further guidance on managing local outbreaks.
Where regulations have been required, the Government have worked with local partners to develop tailored and proportionate restrictions based on the best scientific evidence available, in areas varying from a single factory to an entire region, such as the north of England. These interventions have been underpinned by scientific advice and local data provided by a combination of Public Heath England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and NHS Test and Trace.
Colleagues will have seen that today the rule of six comes into effect. This change brought the gathering policy from guidance into regulation, mandating that people can only gather in groups of six, and it applies both indoors and outdoors. Single households or support bubbles of more than six are still able to gather together, and there are a small number of exemptions, such as for work, schools, weddings and organised sports activities. People should continue to follow social distancing rules with those outside their household or support bubble. As the Prime Minister announced last week, these measures are not a second national lockdown but are aimed at preventing the need for one.
It is thanks to the public and their continued effort that we have been able to slow the spread of the virus and have started cautiously to return to life as normal. Now, with winter approaching and covid rates rising again, we must keep doing whatever it takes to keep it under control, guided by our ever-increasing knowledge of how covid is spreading and what interventions are effective.
I am grateful to colleagues from across the House for their valuable contributions to these debates and for continuing to challenge us to do better in this vital area of public policy. I believe that we have met the bar set for us. These regulations are a proportionate and necessary use of the powers that Parliament has asked us to use, and I commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As she said, they amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020, which dealt primarily with the reopening of the hospitality sector and came into force on 4 July. Those regulations were amended to allow further easing of restrictions, including the opening of outdoor swimming pools and water parks from 11 July, and nail bars and salons, tanning booths and salons, spas and beauty salons, massage parlours, tattoo parlours, and body and skin piercing services from 13 July. As she outlined, those amendments, which came into effect on 25 July, further allowed the reopening of indoor swimming pools, indoor facilities at water parks, indoor fitness and dance studios, and indoor gyms and sports courts and facilities.
I have several issues to raise about these regulations, starting with the fact that they came into effect on 25 July, which is now seven weeks ago. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that my first concern is that, once again, we are debating the regulations too late. It is, regrettably, not the first time I have raised the matter; in fact, I have had to raise it each and every time we have debated the health protection regulations in Committee, because we have not yet managed to debate one of these statutory instruments before it has come into force. That is despite the fact that we are now many months down the line from the initial crisis. As I have made clear on numerous occasions, we accepted that initial regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat and the rising number of infections of a new and unknown disease, but that is no longer the situation.
I am not the only person to raise concerns about the Government continuing to table business without providing time to ensure that proposed changes are debated before they become law. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for timely debates to ensure that such proposals are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite multiple pleas and assurances that the Government had listened to those concerns and were working hard to address the problem, they still appear to believe that a rubber-stamping exercise seven weeks down the line is sufficient to meet their democratic obligations, but I disagree. Parliamentary scrutiny cannot be ditched because the timing is inconvenient. The regulations are too important not to be debated and given timely and full parliamentary scrutiny.
Senior Conservative Members raised these issues in the Chamber only last Thursday, when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care gave his statement. Over the weekend, the airwaves were full of Members expressing their concerns about the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020, which have come into force today without any parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, it was not until 11.45 pm last night—15 minutes before those regulations became law—that a copy of them became available to look at online. That gave people no time to examine them before they came into force, let alone any opportunity for debate or scrutiny. Will those regulations be debated in seven weeks’ time? Although we no longer have a recess to contend with, more than 17 other regulations have come into effect but have not yet been debated—and that does not include four that came into effect and were revoked without ever being debated. That is no way to manage legislation, and that is no way to govern.
The Government’s handling of the pandemic has been too slow throughout, and they continue to be too slow in bringing legislation to the House to be scrutinised. I again plead with the Minister, as I have done on numerous occasions, that the Government should be made aware, in the strongest possible terms, that the Opposition remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt that is being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. The Government can and should make time to debate these regulations properly.
Of course, the Opposition want these measures to work and for us to beat the virus. The Minister must surely agree that high levels of compliance are key to our success in achieving that aim. She will be aware that there are stirrings of discontent about the continuing restrictions that are being placed on our lives. However, some people are using perfectly reasonable concerns about the lack of democratic legitimacy surrounding these restrictions to bolster their outright opposition to the measures. Let us not give them that opportunity. Let us show them that we understand the concerns about the personal implications of such restrictions, and that we take those concerns seriously, by having a full and robust debate before the restrictions are introduced. The rubber-stamping exercises that we go through in Committee weeks after the event cannot engender confidence that the measures are introduced after full consideration and deliberation.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is, as usual, making a powerful point. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) has been particularly vocal. The challenge for us all is ensuring that we take the public with us, be they businesses or constituents. The real criticism is that if we do get the opportunity to debate the restrictions, the public increasingly will not support them.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that that does not prove to be the case but, as I say, we should not give those who want to disobey the rules the opportunity to look for reasons to do so. That is why the rule of law, Parliamentary scrutiny and timely debate are important. I understand that the situation is rapidly changing and that the Government need to act quickly, but I believe that they can act quickly and transparently at the same time. I do not see any contradiction between those two objectives.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Conservative Members have expressed concerns about this Government’s approach to legislation. In a week when former leaders of the Conservative party have queued up to express their concerns about the Government’s proposals to act outside the law, timely debate is one way to restore public trust. It is a way of saying that the rule of law matters in this country; that rules apply to everyone; that the restrictions are serious, not an optional extra; and that the Government do not consider themselves to be above the law.
It should not be beyond the wit of even this Government to arrange, through the usual channels, for Committees to be set up at short notice so that these important regulations are debated properly before they become law. I stand ready to clear my diary, if necessary, to ensure the Opposition plays its part in providing proper scrutiny and accountability for these regulations.
My second concern, which arises as a consequence of our debating these regulations too late, is whether the scientific advice that underpins them is now out of date. If I were to take something positive from our debating the regulations so long after their introduction, it would be that we have the opportunity to look in detail at how they have worked in practice. The explanatory memorandum reminds us that the Government announced the opening of the hospitality sector from 4 July, saying that such action was possible
“due to the continuing falling of the transmission rate”.
That was consistent with the chief medical officers’ down- grading of the UK’s covid alert level from four to three, which meant that we no longer faced the exponential spread of the virus, although it remained in general circulation.
As we probably all know, it seems that that is, sadly, no longer correct. Case numbers have risen sharply in recent days. Numbers soared on Friday, with the highest rise we have seen in four months, and that continued over the weekend. The R number has gone above 1, and it is estimated to be between 1.0 and 1.2. That means that transmission is rising, not falling, contrary to what is stated in the explanatory memorandum. That is despite the fact that people cannot get tests, so we cannot even ascertain the seriousness of the problem. We know that things are deteriorating, but we cannot assess the scale of the problem because we do not have the data to measure to it.
Whatever the true scale of the increase in cases, we are in a very different position from where we were in July. It matters that we are debating, and being asked to decide whether we support, regulations that do not reflect the latest scientific evidence. I do not doubt that the advice was right at the time, but the situation has clearly moved on. Can the Minister update us on the latest scientific advice in relation to the measures in these regulations?
It is something of a nonsense that we are today debating regulations that were introduced when the picture was markedly different. Would we still be introducing these relaxations if they were due to come into force today? I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. What is the latest advice on whether any of the relaxations should be reversed? Can the Minister update us on whether the UK’s covid alert level will change, given the increase in the number of cases and the R number?
There is another reason why the regulations are out of date, and why any debate on them now does not lend itself to proper scrutiny. As the Minister said, the Government are moving away from national restrictions across sectors, which was the strategy when the regulations were introduced, to more localised measures. In a number of areas that were subject to local lockdown restrictions, businesses that the explanatory note acknowledges were the last to open because the transmission risk was considered to be higher did not reopen on 25 July. That was the case in Leicester, for example, which went into the first local lockdown on 22 July, as well as in Blackburn with Darwen and in Luton, which were subject to extra restrictions from 25 July.
To debate whether those relaxations should go ahead now, when they did not go ahead at the time in some local areas because of a spike in infections, is to make a mockery of the process. Granted, it is not as bad as debating the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, which closed down zoos and safari parks, on the same day as another set of regulations came into force that opened them up again, but we are not too far away from that. This shows again the importance of debating future regulations in the House before they come into force.
It is a matter of considerable regret that we are being asked to debate these regulations without the full information on which the Government based their decisions. It is not the first time that has happened. The scientific evidence behind the decision to ease the restrictions is not readily available, and that is an issue when the key question that we must ask is whether the regulations will increase the spread of the virus.
The explanatory memorandum that accompanied the original No. 2 amendment regulations stated:
“There is recognition that these changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates and will continue to be kept under review.”
I have previously asked the Minister to clarify which measures, individually or collectively, were considered to be likely to lead to an increase in transmission rates. We still have not had any clarity on that, and that is not reassuring when we hear that the Government have based their legislation on the science.
The explanatory memorandum for the original No. 2 amendment regulations shared some of the scientific advice from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling on why some measures could be relaxed, but this explanatory memorandum provided no such advice. It may be that the advice no longer holds good for the reasons that I have already outlined, but unless we have complete transparency on that, we are not in a position to judge its strength or relevance. Was the decision to reopen these businesses and venues based on advice from scientific advisers? How is the risk quantified? Were any elements of the relaxation considered to be riskier than others? What, if any, mitigating measures were recommended?
As I have highlighted to the Minister on several occasions, we have not seen the legally required reviews of the regulations. We know that the Secretary of State is required to review them every 28 days. The first review was due by 31 July, which means that a second was due by the end of August. Why have we not seen the findings of those reviews to inform our decision making today? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has called on the Government to ensure that that information is provided. Without those reviews, all that has been published alongside the regulations is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out and no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken. Will the Minister commit to publishing the review of the regulations alongside the full scientific evidence and full impact assessment?
We will not press the regulations to a Division, but I hope that the Minister has got the message loud and clear that the continual failure to debate these regulations in a timely manner is unacceptable. If the Government really want to live up to their ambition of Parliament taking back control, they should start by acting in a way that allows it to do so.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his response, some of which, as he mentioned, he has said before. I will address his comments head-on.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would like us to have debated these regulations sooner, and we absolutely recognise that timely scrutiny is important. There is substantial scrutiny of the Government’s decisions. For instance, there have been multiple oral statements, and numerous urgent questions have been responded to by Government Ministers. There is a great deal of challenge to decisions that are made.
However, throughout the pandemic and up to the present, we continue to need to act rapidly. We need to take rapid decisions to make restrictions to people’s normal way of living, unfortunately, when we see growing risks of the spread of the disease. We also want to be able to take rapid decisions to reduce those restrictions, recognising the difficulties that they cause for people going about their lives, whether in their family relationships, social relationships or livelihoods.
The hon. Gentleman has said that we are now at a different time, and things are different now. Yes, we have done a huge amount to bring the virus under control since the peak in the spring, and we now have a vast quantity of testing relative to the amount we had earlier on, although I fully recognise that its capacity is challenged at the moment because of the great deal of demand for it. However, we are continuing to learn all the time from the greater data we now have about how people are catching the virus—how it is spreading, but also how it is not spreading—so it is still the case that we need to be able to move quickly.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the scientific context for this, and whether because time has moved on, these easements are still the right thing to do. The restrictions are continuously reviewed, looking at what new restrictions may be appropriate and what easements might need to be introduced. As he has acknowledged, in some areas where there have been local outbreaks, restrictions have either not been lifted or have been reintroduced. We are able to do that because, thanks to the operation of Test and Trace and the Joint Biosecurity Centre, we have much more data about how the virus is spreading. For instance, we know that the virus is largely spreading through people’s social interactions. For the most part, it is not spreading in workplaces, and the risk for children in schools is very low, but we have a particular challenge with social contact. Therefore, we are, in general, able to maintain the easements that have been brought in, but are introducing the rule of six today to limit the social contact through which covid is spreading.
In some areas of the country where there are greater rates of covid, there are greater restrictions on household gatherings and even on the rule of six, because we have evidence that in some places, it is particularly spreading through households mingling in a home setting. The whole point is that having greater data and scientific insight, and following scientific advice, means that the restrictions we now have in place can be more tightly targeted, and can avoid restricting people’s lives in ways that are not essential while targeting the ways in which we know the virus is being spread. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to review the situation, including whether we need to impose further restrictions. Clearly, that would be done with great reluctance, but we cannot get to a situation that is the same as the one we were in earlier in the year. We must continue to be vigilant.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in a little more detail some of the work that is taking place to understand how the virus is spreading. Is it the case that the relaxations we have talked about today are not contributing to an increase in transmission?
Helen Whately
As I said, the work that is carried out by the Joint Biosecurity Centre, drawing on the information from NHS Test and Trace and other sources of data, looks at the main sources of spread. We know that the main source of spread is through social contact, rather than in more controlled settings. In business settings, we are seeing, for the most part, businesses taking great care to ensure their setting is covid secure, for which they should be commended.
I feel that this is the moment to bring the debate to a conclusion, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1974 (EXCEPTIONS) ORDER 1975 (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2020
DRAFT POLICE ACT 1997 (CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: RELEVANT MATTERS) (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020.
Victoria Atkins
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I suspect that you are the first of the 2015 intake to serve on the Panel of Chairs—that is a real and well-deserved privilege.
The orders, which were laid before Parliament on 9 July, are two very technical but important because they relate to the requirements for a person to self-disclose criminal records when applying for roles that are eligible for standard and enhanced criminal records checks, and to the rules for disclosure of criminal convictions and cautions on a standard or enhanced criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service. As criminal record disclosure is a devolved matter, the orders apply only to England and Wales.
As hon. Members may be aware, in January 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of P, G and W. Overall, the Court found that a rules-based disclosure regime for criminal record certificates is justifiable and in accordance with the law. However, that judgment also determined that certain aspects of the current disclosure rules are incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights—namely, the right to a private life.
There were two areas of concern. First, the multiple conviction rule, under which all convictions, regardless of their nature, are disclosed when an individual has more than one, was found to be unnecessary and disproportionate in terms of indicating a propensity to offend. Secondly, the disclosure of out-of-court disposals administered to young offenders was found to be “an error of principle”, given the instructive purpose of the disposals, so the Court found against the automatic disclosure of youth reprimands and warnings.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Surely both propositions are absolutely self-evident. Why did we drag it all the way through the Court of Appeal and up to the Supreme Court—wasting years carrying on with it—when the Court actually applied a common-sense approach on both counts and said, “This is wrong”? Why could Ministers and civil servants not have done that years ago, rather than taking it all the way through that elongated process?
Victoria Atkins
I am so pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. He has a particular interest in this matter, and I answer many of his parliamentary questions on it, so I know that it is an area in which he is an expert and to which he is very committed.
Although I do not want to go into the details of all the cases that were joined together, the reason that the Government took those cases to the Supreme Court was that there were many important principles of law to be tested. All along, we have reviewed those rules and done as we thought right. We cannot hide from the fact that the reason that the Disclosure and Barring Service regime and its predecessor were set up in the first place was to protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is right that the Supreme Court was asked to look at the regime as a whole. It found that the regime was satisfactory and within the bounds of article 8 and other measures within the convention, but it drew two points to our attention. We have gone into great detail to ensure that we can bring about a system to enact the observations in the ruling by the Supreme Court, but to do so in a way that keeps the purpose of the regime in place.
The orders before the Committee will not change the purpose of the disclosure regime. The disclosure rules will continue to ensure that children and vulnerable people are protected from dangerous offenders. However, the Supreme Court judgment made it clear that these two areas of concern are disproportionate as currently framed, so the orders will ensure that there is a balance between the safeguarding aims and supporting people who have offended in the past to move into employment and move on with their lives.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I very much welcome these orders—not least for people who had a difficult childhood, potentially in care, and who carried with them through to adulthood a criminal history that has followed them ever since, potentially disproportionately, for the reasons that we have heard. Can the Minister enlighten me about the impact on businesses? Have the Government considered whether the orders will give businesses more reasons to look harder at the potential of employing people who in the past would have had their criminal history disclosed?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend. He was the Minister of State with responsibility for children and families over many years—I think some six or seven years.
Victoria Atkins
Forgive me, five years. My Hon. Friend had an incredibly positive effect on the lives of many thousands of children across our country, including the most vulnerable. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of businesses, because the disclosure regime—both the order that we are dealing with, in terms of people having to disclose their convictions, and the Disclosure and Barring Service regime itself—is about putting the responsibility for making considered employment decisions on employers. With the exception of the barred list, it is not for the DBS to say, “This person shouldn’t be employed in this particular role.” It is for the employer to make that assessment.
Frankly, I hope that having this debate and the debates we have in the House and in the media really helps to highlight the vital role that employers play in giving young people a second chance, which we all know is so key to their rehabilitating and moving on with their lives. As I say, I am very pleased that the orders will have the effect that, unless affected by other disclosure rules, youth cautions and multiple convictions no longer have to be disclosed when a person is asked about them, and they will no longer be subject to automatic disclosure on standard and enhanced criminal record certificates.
I turn now to the technical parts of the orders. The draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020 amends articles 2(2) and (4) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 to change the definition of a “protected caution” to include all those given where a person was under 18 at the time. The order also amends articles 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 the 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 that is eligible for a standard or enhanced DBS check, unless one of the other disclosure rules in engaged.
The draft 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 that definition. A “relevant matter” is a matter that 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 the order is that, where not affected by any other rule, youth reprimands, warnings and cautions and multiple convictions will no longer be subject to automatic disclosure in criminal record certificates issued by the DBS.
I emphasise, however, that the Government are clear on their responsibilities to safeguard the public, particularly children and vulnerable adults. Where an offence has been committed, we will want to ensure that the public are adequately safeguarded by enabling employers to make informed recruitment decisions through the disclosure of appropriate and relevant information, particularly for roles that involve close contact with children and vulnerable adults or a high level of public trust.
Convictions and adult cautions will still be disclosed on DBS certificates if they are recent; if they were received for a specified violent or sexual offence; or if a custodial sentence was imposed. Furthermore, the statutory disclosure regime enables chief police officers to disclose any information they consider to be relevant to the purpose of the certificate and in the chief officer’s opinion ought to be included in the certificate. To that end, we intend to publish the associated Home Office statutory guidance for the police alongside this legislative change, to reflect 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 for the purpose for which the certificate is sought.
We are confident that these changes, if agreed, will still enable employers to make informed recruitment decisions, but in a way that enables those who committed minor offences and who offended long ago to move away from their past and on with their lives. This will particularly benefit those with childhood cautions.
I hope the Committee will support the two orders to ensure compatibility with article 8 while continuing to support effective protection for children and vulnerable adults. I commend these orders to the Committee.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
It is great to see you in the Chair for the first time, Ms Ghani. I thank the Minister for a call last week about these provisions, for which I was very grateful. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley for his persistent pursuit of this subject over many years in Parliament and for being distinguished in pressing the Prime Minister on this at three consecutive Prime Minister’s questions. The result of the Supreme Court decision is why we are here this afternoon.
There are currently more than 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record. Nearly three quarters of ex-offenders are unemployed on release from prison, and 50% of employers say they would not consider hiring an ex-offender. At its worst, the criminal records regime is a second sentence for those who have already served their time, trapping offenders in a cycle of reoffending. In my review into the criminal justice system, which I was asked to do by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, I singled out the criminal records regime as an area that most desperately needed reform.
If we are to break the endless loop of reoffending, ex- offenders must have an opportunity to move on with their lives. That means, in effect, having support and services, but there is also the need to get a job. A job removes dependence on criminality for income; a job gives an opportunity for education and training; a job gives ex-offenders a belief in their own future; and a job gives them a stake in society. Prisoners who find work on release are less likely to reoffend than those who do not.
That is shown in the disparities between different ethnic groups. Ethnic groups with higher unemployment rates also have higher reoffending rates. In my review, I found that, two years after a caution, conviction or release from custody, 28% of those with an Asian background were unemployed, compared with 40% unemployment among black ex-offenders. That is why I took the issue so seriously. I am happy that we are today discussing modest but progressive reform of the criminal records regime, which will have a positive effect on people’s lives and wider society.
The changes proposed are to the filtering rules applied by the DBS to determine which convictions and cautions should no longer be disclosed on standard and enhanced criminal record checks in England and Wales. The Supreme Court judgment that forced the Government to act required two specific changes—that multiple offences become eligible for filtering, so long as they are not disclosable under other rules, and that youth cautions, reprimands and final warnings be immediately filtered. Currently, if a person has multiple convictions, these cannot be filtered out, even if the individual offences would be. The Supreme Court judgment was right to condemn this approach as “capricious”, “disproportionate” and counterproductive.
The new regime will allow each offence to be treated separately and filtered out as appropriate for the individual offence. Right now, reprimands, warnings and youth cautions are filtered only after two years, causing huge damage to young people’s ability to enter education and training, with some barred from training in certain professions entirely until their record is filtered. The whole purpose of warnings and reprimands is to avoid prosecution, and in doing so to improve a young offender’s future prospects. However, the Court found that disclosing warnings and reprimands to potential employers had the opposite effect. The Opposition are pleased that the new filtering rules mean that all three things will be immediately filtered. These changes will have a real and positive impact on thousands of young lives, which in turn will reap huge benefits for society as a whole.
However, these changes should make us pause and consider the case for broader and deeper reform of the criminal records regime. The changes do not make a judgment on the filtering system as a whole or assess whether it is providing the right balance between harm and protection. It is still the case that very minor criminal records acquired in teenage years can continue to haunt someone’s career prospects well into their 30s and 40s. As the Taylor review of youth justice acknowledged, the evidence is that most young people grow out of crime. Maturity comes at different ages for young people, but on average an individual is significantly less likely to reoffend in their mid-20s than they were just a few years earlier.
The present filtering regime suggests a clear and morally relevant dividing line between those who receive a custodial sentence and those who receive a community order. A custodial sentence is never eligible for filtering, but a community order always is. However, the sentence that each offender receives is often driven more by demographic, geography and other arbitrary factors, not the seriousness of the crime itself. It is a great shame that, in 2020, I have to point out the elephant in the room: whether someone receives a community order, which is eligible for filtering, or a custodial sentence, which is not, can often depend, sadly, on their having a minority background.
That is precisely why the then Prime Minister and current Minister for the Cabinet Office asked me to lead a review into this area and why, in looking at these issues, I recommended the sealing of criminal records. I emphasise that that is not sealing from the criminal justice system—it would always be the case that the courts, prosecutors, police, the probation service and others have access to criminal records—but, where appropriate, from employers, aside from particular cases where it is necessary for the employer to have access to that record.
At the end of the hearing, the court is able to weigh up different factors, including the problems for the applicant arising from their criminal record, evidence of rehabilitation years later indicating that the applicant would take proper advantage of their record being sealed, relevant circumstances at the time of the offence that suggest that the applicant will not reoffend and the passage of time since the offence. All these issues are relevant, and we ought to come up with an administrative process—it may well be that applicants have to pay for the process—whereby we are able to seal criminal records and ensure much higher employment rates for former offenders.
The Opposition believe in second chances. I should hope that Conservatives believe in second chances, so I hope that the Government will come forward with wider plans. In that regard, I look to the sentencing reforms that the Lord Chancellor indicated at the weekend and hope that we might see further progress there.
John Spellar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank the Minister not only for writing to me, but for an informal briefing on the subject under discussion today. The changes are welcome, but long overdue. I have just delved into my files and I have a letter from the Ministry of Justice, from the then Minister, dated 20 April 2013:
“I am writing further to Andrew Lansley’s”—
remember him?—
“response to your Business Question on 18 April, asking for an early debate to discuss the impact of including cautions and minor convictions in disclosures issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service.”
That was in response to a
“recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R.”
This has been going on and on.
The changes today are welcome, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, but they still do not go far enough. It is still the case that, if people commit slightly more serious offences in their teen years, that dogs them all through their life. Indeed, some of the Supreme Court cases demonstrate that. These anomalies and problems will emerge, and I would hope, without too much expectation, that the Department might respond much more quickly than it has. The situation has gone on far too long.
It has become clear in the exchanges we have had that the issue is not even one that divides the parties, uniting those on the right of the Conservative party and the left of the Labour party. That is not, by the way, unique to the United Kingdom. In the United States, right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats have united in working together to introduce schemes for the rehabilitation of offenders, recognising a major social problem and an economic issue.
It is only the Department, and the stubbornness of officials, that have held things back. I have had agreement in the past between the Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary. The trouble was they got moved, and we had to start all over again. At the same time, the matter was dragged back by the officials, who would not move.
That is not unprecedented, by the way, in dealing with such issues. It took something like 10 or 15 years to get changes to wheel clamping, which had been abolished in Scotland by one legal decision. Yet again, after going all the way through the Home Office, the issue finally got transferred to the Department for Transport and we managed to get the changes and prevent wheel clamping on private land.
We cannot afford to behave like that, because the issue is extremely important. Everyone accepts that an essential condition for rehabilitation, which I think we all accept is desirable, just and necessary, enabling offenders to play their part in a law-abiding society, is to have a job and a stable relationship—the second of which is often dependent on the first—as well as being able to move into that job fairly rapidly.
I was interested in the intervention by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, and I pay tribute to the incredible work done by the company that he is associated with, precisely in recognising that. I only wish that more employers would follow through in the same way. He made an important point and asked that employers should look at the person.
Unfortunately, that is where I think the Minister was slightly naive. All that many employers look at is whether the boxes are ticked. Is the age box ticked? If someone is over a certain age, employers do not even look at them. There is a new way of doing that: employers ask for qualifications. For jobs where there is no reason to want A-levels, they want them. Alternatively, they require a degree-level person for a job. What does that say? It says that older people need not apply, because we look at the increase in the number of people taking A-levels and degrees, and we will see that there is a very definite age bias, so again they are excluded.
As for people with a disability, regardless of whether or not that disability prevents them from doing the job, too many employers—including some in the public sector, for all their pretensions—will not look at the person and think, “They can’t take this particular exam; they can’t do the job.” I once had a case of a constituent who had been doing a civil service job on a temporary basis for about four years. Their union reps tried everything to get them the job, but no, because the civil service rules said that they first had to take an exam, but because of their disability, which was a mental disability, they could not do that, but they had worked out a coping mechanism.
This behaviour is immoral, unjust and incredibly economically inefficient. However, there is another factor coming in. For quite a while now, we have had the issue that for too many employers the easy option has been not to look at the person but just to say, “Well, they have got some conviction.” They will then pick up the phone to the agency, which will pick up the phone to Warsaw, and all they will do is just import labour to do the work. Now, with the rapid increase in unemployment—we are already seeing that feeding through into reducing wage rates, indicating a surplus of supply over demand—we will be seeing the same thing, with employers taking the easy route. If somebody cannot tick the box, the employer does not even look at them. I think we will have to return to this issue, although this measure actually enables us to make decent progress.
I take issue with the Minister’s point about timeliness. The Lammy report, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham himself referred to very modestly, was a seminal report produced at the request of the then Conservative Prime Minister in 2017. The Minister referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment of January 2019. We are now in September 2020. Why has it taken the Department so long, given that they knew all the issues that were involved, because they had been dealt with by the Court of Appeal? All that was being asked for was some final validation by the Supreme Court.
I return to the issue I raised. Given the details of the cases involved, why did the Home Office not move? I have to say that I find it truly extraordinary, when we have a lot of complaints about judges trying to make law rather than interpreting the law and adjudicating on it. Actually, we seem to have abdicated that responsibility, leaving it to judges to make the law. I had thought that it was the job of Parliament, Ministers and the civil service to identify problems and see whether they can be resolved within existing law, and then—if the law needs changing—to bring that change to Parliament. Why abdicate that to judges?
Let us look at one or two of the cases that were part of the Supreme Court’s judgment. P received a caution on 26 July 1999 for the theft of a sandwich from a shop. Three months later, on 1 November 1999, she was convicted at Oxford magistrates court of the theft of a book worth 99p and failing to surrender to the bail granted to her after arrest for that offence. She received a conditional discharge for both offences. At the time of the offences, she was 28, homeless and suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia, which is now under control. She has now qualified as a teaching assistant and has committed no further offences, but she has been unable to find employment. That is a scandal. Why would the Home Office not respond to that and say, “This cannot be and this should not be”?
W was convicted by Dewsbury magistrates court on 26 November 1982 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. At the time of the offence, he was 16 and the assault occurred in the course of a fight between a number of boys on their way home from school. He received a conditional discharge and has not offended since. He is now 47 and has difficulty obtaining a teaching job.
In 1996, Lorraine Gallagher was convicted at Londonderry magistrates court of one count of driving without wearing a seatbelt and three counts of carrying a child under 14 years old without a seatbelt, and there was a subsequent case in 1998. She has no other convictions. She qualified as a social carer and was admitted to the Northern Ireland Social Care Council register, and then she was rejected for employment as a result of failing the test. There are many other cases—I am sure many Members of Parliament have had them.
Frankly, it is scandalous that this issue has not been dealt with up to now. I doubt that, had I not had the luck of getting a question to the Prime Minister three weeks in a row—no, I did not tip the winner of the St Leger—it would even have got here by now. Why was the Prime Minister, certainly on the second occasion, not able to trump me and say, “This has all been sorted out”? This has been a saga of dither and delay.
A further problem is that the system finds it very difficult to cope with so many cases. Anybody who has moved from one conurbation to another—I get people who have moved from London to the midlands—have to get DBS checks from two police forces, and the record of the Metropolitan police has not been glowing in that regard. Month after month goes by, and those people are not able to get into employment. They are denied the ability to provide for themselves. That is partly to do with the efficiency of those forces, and partly about why these things cannot be done in parallel, rather than in series. It is also because we are overloading the system with so many unnecessary cases.
The Security Industry Authority is another one that has considerable problems. Those who remember the first police and crime commissioner elections know that those who had very minor convictions or cautions in their teenage years—they were often in their 50s or 60s —were denied the right to run as police and crime commissioners even if they were major figures in their local societies. This mindset at the Home Office must change.
I think, therefore, that colleagues on both sides of the House need to consider, as we approach Brexit and this country needs to be firing on four, not two, cylinders, whether we can afford this dithering, delay and obstruction that goes on regularly in so many Departments. Is it not holding back our country, as well as individuals? There is a real economic price to pay, quite apart from the social justice case. If we keep people in enforced unemployment or working in jobs that are below their capability and potential, that is not just bad for them but significantly bad for the country. Therefore, there needs to be a reflection particularly about the Home Office but also about the civil service generally.
We have had too many cases of this in the Home Office. We had the Windrush scandal, in which year after year, decent, hard-working citizens were deprived of their rights, treated with contempt, pushed around and treated scandalously. Even after it was exposed, very few of them received compensation—although, I do not know what the appropriate compensation would be for having their lives ruined. Some have already died, including one who used to work in the House of Commons, yet they rejected her claim. We have more and more delay and obstruction. I do not know how many people are still stuck, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham might.
John Spellar
Five thousand people are still stuck in the system, which will not give way. Frankly, it is that indifference—that contempt for ordinary people—that, bluntly, in previous eras of the civil service, led to the Irish and Bengal famines. This is a welcome change. It needs to go further, but there also needs to be a root-and-branch change in Government.
Victoria Atkins
We were getting on so well! Hon. Members in other parts of the Palace may be heatedly debating certain issues, but I was hoping, from the constructive speech of the right hon. Member for Tottenham, that we could find agreement. Indeed, I acknowledge that he kindly indicated that the orders will not be subject to a vote, for which I thank him.
I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work on the Lammy review, on which he continues to keep a laser-like focus. Only recently, in answer to an urgent question, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), updated the Chamber that, of the right hon. Gentleman’s recommendations, 16 have been completed, two have been rejected and 17 are in progress. I very much hope that he considers this measure to be one of the recommendations in progress that we hope to be finalised by the end of the year.
The hon. Member for Warley—
Victoria Atkins
Forgive me. The right hon. Gentleman took a slightly different approach in his advocacy, but we acknowledge the passion that he brings to the subject. I merely confirm and reassure him that his PMQs will have been considered carefully by the Prime Minister, and that the Government will of course continue to consider carefully the Supreme Court ruling. It is precisely because we have been careful to ensure that we are following the guidance in that ruling that we have arrived at these orders.
I will clarify a couple of points in relation to the case that was argued, because the right hon. Member for Warley put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that common sense would have dictated that the Government change the policy before the Supreme Court ruling on the four cases that were joined. In fact, in the case of P, her convictions stood to be disclosed under the multiple conviction rule. W wanted to teach English, but as actual bodily harm is on the specified offences list, it will always be disclosed, and indeed, that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case of Gallagher was again a case of the multiple conviction rule, and will be corrected by virtue of these orders.
The fourth case, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, was that of G, who received two reprimands aged 13 for sexually assaulting two younger boys, both aged nine. G claimed that the acts were consensual. He would have had the reprimand disclosed under the serious offences rule. The Supreme Court was content with that course of action. I hope that shows that, although one may have an instinct as to how certain rules should be applied, the Government must none the less take each case and be clear as to the consequences, intended and unintended, of changing the safeguarding regime.
John Spellar
If we take the case of W, the Supreme Court would have said, “As we understand the law, as the law is, this is what you should do.” The Minister said that the Supreme Court gave approval for the way the Government acted in the case of W. It then falls back to the Minister to justify how a conditional discharge that a 16-year-old received after a fight between a number of boys on their way home from school in 1982, since when he has not offended, should blight his life in his 40s. That is not a job for the judge, who has to work on the basis of the law at that moment. Why did Ministers not take from that example that they should change the law?
Victoria Atkins
I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because, although I am not sure that he realises it, he is supporting my argument, which is that the national framework that applies across England and Wales has to be drafted in such a way that is compatible with the law, and indeed the Supreme Court upheld that element of the regime. Of course, the case-by-case application of the regime is a matter for employers—that is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Under this regime, in very vulnerable cases, and with the exception of the barred list, it is a matter for employers.
I emphasise that this does not apply to every single job out there; it applies to those that fall under the criteria of the regime—namely, jobs that deal with the most vulnerable in our society and that require high levels of trust and responsibility, including the security industry, for example. The Supreme Court has done exactly as it should have by reviewing the regime and saying that the specified offences list is within the rule of the law and the ECHR, so it is for employers to apply it to the individual cases. As the right hon. Gentleman for Warley knows full well, we in this place—with the best will in the world—cannot possibly imagine every which way that people conduct their lives or what misfortunes and troubles they may have, so we have to provide a framework that employers can apply and apply well.
The right hon. Gentleman for Warley mentioned the delay. To reassure the Committee, part of the work that we have been doing since the Supreme Court judgment has been to understand the likely effects of those changes. Analysts in the Home Office undertook detailed analysis of how the rule changes, if applied retrospectively, would have affected applicants for DBS certificates. The year 2015-16 was chosen because that was the last year for which we had full records at the time that the report was researched.
A peer-reviewed analytical report, which was published on 9 September, summarises the main results of the work. It shows that the changes affected a higher proportion of applicants for DBS certificates who received convictions or cautions while under the age of 18 than of applicants who received convictions fully during their adult lives. Some 85% of applicants with youth convictions or cautions would see at least one offence removed from their list of disclosed offences, while 32% see all their convictions and cautions removed. I give those figures as an indication of the thought and care that has gone into bringing the orders forward.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham urged the Government to go further. He will know that we are publishing the sentencing White Paper, which will contain further proposals for reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 where the rules apply to non-sensitive roles. We are supportive of reducing the number of people who have previously offended who are required to disclose their convictions as part of basic employment checks. Of course, we need to consider safeguarding concerns, but I very much look forward to contributions from him and others as the sentencing White Paper is analysed and discussed.
The right hon. Gentleman for Tottenham also raised childhood rehabilitation periods, which will be considered along with potential changes to adult rehabilitation periods under the 1974 Act, where the rules apply to non-sensitive roles. Ministry of Justice officials have met charities with an interest in supporting children and adults who have offended in the past, as well as employer representatives, to discuss our approach. Again, the sentencing White Paper is very much part of that landscape. We have of course taken into consideration recommendations on this issue from the Justice Committee and from other reports.
I hope that I have responded to the questions that have been posed this afternoon. We are confident that the regime will still help employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly for roles involving children and vulnerable adults, but in a way that now enables those with old and minor offences to move away from their pasts. I commend the draft instruments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020.
Draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020.—(Victoria Atkins.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 791).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The regulations were made by the Secretary of State on 23 July and came into force on 24 July. We introduced the regulations to make it mandatory to wear face coverings in some indoor settings in England, such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. The regulations are exceptional measures that have been brought forward to mitigate the unprecedented impact of the covid-19 pandemic, and they comply with all the Government’s obligations in relation to human rights.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in the debate. My intervention is relevant to the first point that she made. Paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum says that the order was laid on 23 July “by reason of urgency”. What was the urgency at that time, when this matter had been under debate for at least three months?
Ms Dorries
I will look further into what the urgency was, but I imagine that the evidence that we were getting at the time was that face coverings could prevent people who might be asymptomatic from spreading or contracting the virus. Any measure that can stop an increase in the incidence of coronavirus would have been deemed necessary to halt coronavirus, to stop it increasing in the community and to save lives. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with further information on that.
The regulations are exceptional measures that have been brought forward to mitigate the unprecedented impact of the covid-19 pandemic, and they comply with all the Government’s obligations in relation to human rights. Above all, the regulations can help to save lives. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations, so that we may continue to use these powers to save lives. The regulations are a necessary response to the seriousness of the situation and the imminent threat to public health that is posed by the spread of covid-19, which is why they were brought into effect under the emergency procedure approved by Parliament for such measures.
It is important that the Committee is able to scrutinise the regulations through this debate. Further amendments were made to the regulations to extend the requirement to wear a face covering to a wider list of indoor settings that are now open to members of the public. Those amendments will be debated at a later date. This debate will therefore focus only on the regulations as they were originally made in July. This country has been, and still is, engaged in a national effort to beat the coronavirus, thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the British people. Guided by the science, this progress has allowed us to cautiously ease lockdown restrictions, allowing sections of the economy, such as the retail and hospitality sector, to reopen.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she is being very generous with her time.
I want to return to my hon. Friend’s comment about the regulations being debated in the House at a later time. Is she saying that we will eventually debate them in the House? I will support the regulations, so she need not worry. We are where we are, but there is a lot of debate about whether face coverings are necessary, and it needs to take place on the Floor of the House. Is the intention that the regulations will be debated on the Floor of the House?
Ms Dorries
These regulations are up for debate every six months anyway, because they are only temporary. Even at that point, they would be up for debate. I cannot tell my right hon. Friend when they will come before the House, but they certainly will do at some stage, particularly as we have an obligation in law to bring them to the House for debate.
To coincide with the easement of some restrictions, we introduced the regulations to give members of the public the confidence to visit public indoor spaces safely, and to enhance protections for people working in such settings. This was explained by the Secretary of State when he addressed Parliament on 14 July and announced the measures.
There has been support for the policy in the retail sector. For example, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium said that, together with other social distancing measures, face coverings can make shoppers feel even more confident about returning to the high street. Additionally, the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses said:
“As mandatory face coverings are introduced, small firms know that they have a part to play in the nation’s recovery both physically and financially, and I’m sure this will be welcomed by them.”
Therefore, we are confident that this was the right step to take.
The Government have continually reviewed and refined their advice on face coverings, led by the latest scientific evidence. Prior to the regulations, the Government were already advising the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces where people might find it difficult to maintain social distance and might come into contact with others they would not usually meet. Furthermore, face coverings have been mandatory on public transport in England since 15 June. While face coverings are not a substitute for social distancing and good hand hygiene, the scientific evidence suggests that, when used correctly, face coverings may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of those with the infection passing it on to others, particularly if they are asymptomatic.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the Minister, who is as ever being generous. I think she is reading directly from the explanatory memorandum. I wonder if she would be good enough to point the Committee to the evidence she is referring to.
Ms Dorries
I will come to explain that a little further in my speech, but we take the evidence on face coverings from a variety of sources: not only the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies but the behavioural insights team at the Department of Health and the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group.
When the retail sector reopened and footfall increased, we wanted to enhance protections for members of the public and ensure we were taking the necessary steps to build on the progress we continued to make in reducing the transmission of the virus. That is why we have made it mandatory to wear face coverings in indoor places such as shops, supermarkets and enclosed shopping centres. Similar measures have been adopted in Scotland and Northern Ireland and internationally in countries such as France, Germany and Spain, to name just a few.
I will now outline what the regulations do and set out the policies and processes underlying their development, implementation, monitoring and review. As I have said, the regulations introduced a requirement on members of the public to wear a face covering in relevant places such as a shop, supermarket, enclosed shopping centre and indoor transport hub unless they are exempt or have reasonable excuse not to. The regulations do not apply to employees working in those settings. The wearing of any protective clothing or personal protective equipment by the workforce is a matter for employers following a risk assessment and is part of their health and safety responsibilities. Definitions of shops and transport hubs are included in the regulations, as well as a list of premises that are excluded and where a face covering is not mandatory: for example, restaurants and bars.
The list of settings included reflected the premises that were open to the public at the time of making the regulations. As more settings reopened to members of the public, the regulations were amended to include additional indoor settings and provide more clarity to members of the public on where face coverings must be worn. Those amendments will be debated in due course.
Guidance on gov.uk describes a face covering as a covering of any type covering the wearer’s nose and mouth. People should make or buy their own. Guidance has been published online on how to make and wear a face covering. We are asking people not to use medical-grade PPE as that should be reserved for health and care workers. However, someone wearing PPE would be compliant with the regulations.
While the Government expect the vast majority of people to comply with the rules, as they have done throughout the pandemic, the regulations give powers to the police and Transport for London officers to ensure the requirements to wear a face covering. This could include denying entry to the relevant place and/or directing members of the public to wear a face covering. The police will use the usual four Es approach: explaining engaging and encouraging—and enforcing only as a last resort. In the event that a person fails to comply with a direction from a police officer or a Transport for London officer, a police constable is able to remove the member of the public from the relevant place.
The regulations also include powers for police constables, police community support officers or a TfL officer in relation to the relevant transport hub, to issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone over the age of 18 who is in breach of the law. At the time of making the regulations, that was a fixed penalty of £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days of the notice being issued. Since making the regulations, we have made amendments to the penalty structure, with increased fines for repeat offenders. That is in line with the enforcement provisions in other coronavirus regulations. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate that amendment at a later date.
Although we want as many people as possible to wear a face covering, we recognise that some people are not able to wear one, for a variety of reasons. The regulations exempt children under the age of 11, employees or officials acting in the course of their employment in these premises, and emergency responders. There is no general exception on health or disability grounds. To reiterate, we recognise that, for some, wearing a face covering is not possible or would cause distress or difficulty, and there are certain situations in which wearing a face covering is not practical or reasonable.
The regulations provide a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that constitute a reasonable excuse, pursuant to regulation 3(1), for not complying with the legal requirement to wear a face covering in a relevant place. Such circumstances include where a person is unable to put on or wear a face covering because of physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability; where a face covering needs to be removed for communication through lip reading; where a person needs to remove their face covering because it is reasonably necessary to eat or drink; or where a person is required to remove a face covering for identification purposes. There is comprehensive guidance on what might constitute a reasonable excuse, including circumstances that are not expressly included in the regulations—for example, when a person is speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on facial expressions to communicate, or where a person needs to remove a face covering to exercise.
Alec Shelbrooke
I just want to build on that point. My hon. Friend will be well aware that I myself have impaired hearing. It is incredible, but what I have discovered is that you may think that you can hear someone, but unless you can see their lips moving, you cannot hear them. And that is in the normal context—I can hear everything perfectly well in this room right now, but if it is a busy area, I cannot. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clarification. I think that there should perhaps be a little more emphasis, for the understanding of people outside the House, that actually even those of us who are not registered deaf or anything like that do rely on seeing lip movement to hear people in a crowded room.
Ms Dorries
Having known my right hon. Friend for some years now, I of course do know that, and my own mother is almost totally deaf. It is incredibly distressing, particularly for the elderly who are deaf and can no longer hear/see what people are saying to them. I take on board my right hon. Friend’s point about deafness and face coverings. Taking all that into account, and even with my own personal life experience of how it affects people, I am still absolutely supportive of the fact that, on the basis of scientific evidence and recommendations to us, this is a necessary move, one that we have to undertake, to stop the increase of the virus within communities.
We have been working with stakeholders to ensure that staff are aware of the exemptions in place and that some people will not be able to wear a face covering. We are also clear that people do not need to prove that they are exempt from, or have a reasonable excuse regarding, the requirement to wear a face covering, and they should not be challenged about that. These regulations have been supported by a communications campaign explaining where face coverings are mandatory—I take my right hon. Friend’s point; that may need to be ramped up—how to wear one safely and encouraging understanding and awareness of those who may not be able to wear a face covering. We have set out the full details of this policy in our guidance.
As expected, reports indicate widespread compliance with the requirement to wear a face covering in relevant indoor settings, and surveys suggest that there is significant public support. The Office for National Statistics public survey showed that, in the period from 29 July to 4 September, at least 96% of adults in England had worn a face covering when shopping. The figure has remained consistently high. However, we should not expect participation to reach 100%, as there will always be those people who are exempt or have valid reasons why they should not be wearing a face covering.
Included in the regulations is a review clause requiring a review of the need for the requirements imposed by the regulations at six months—to answer the question about that. A sunset clause is included, so the regulations will expire at the end of 12 months after the day they come into force.
We will continue to monitor the impact and effectiveness of the policy in the weeks and months ahead, and we will develop our approach of enforcement and communicating the policy as necessary. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and in the scrutiny of the regulations. We will of course reflect on the debate to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she said, the instrument requires members of the public to wear a face covering when in the relevant place. It came into effect on 24 July.
I will be clear from the outset that we support the instrument. As the Minister said, it is an exceptional measure, but we are in exceptional times and we all have to play our part in beating the virus. Unless someone has an exemption, it is important that, where advised to wear a mask, we all should. That is important for not just keeping each other safe, but opening up the economy and saving people’s livelihoods.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations define a relevant place as a shop, including shops, supermarkets and enclosed shopping centres. It does not include areas of shops and shopping centres that are provided for the consumption of food and drink, such as seating areas provided in coffee shops, supermarket cafés and food court areas in shopping centres. It covers transport hubs, including any enclosed stations, terminals, ports or other similar premises from or to which a public transport service operates.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The regulations do include transport hubs, and they are clear about TfL having the powers to issue fines in London, but they are sketchy on other transport hubs, many of which, civil servants may wish to know, exist outside London.
Justin Madders
As we have commented from time to time, it seems that to this place, there is not much life outside London. Of course there are a number of transport operators operating up and down the country that the regulations do not cover. For example, my public transport operator on the railways, Merseyrail, has said that it does not currently have the powers for its staff to be able to enforce the regulations. That will certainly need to be ironed out in future regulations.
The regulations that require a person to wear a face covering unless they have a reasonable excuse also set out the categories of people to whom the requirement does not apply. They include children under the age of 11, shop employees in the course of their employment, and a non-exhaustive list of what may constitute a reasonable excuse.
I have some questions about some of the specific provisions in regulation 3 in relation to the requirement to wear a face covering, particularly regulation 3(2)(b) where the requirement does not apply to someone working in the course of their employment. The Minister set out that the regulations are not intended to cover workplaces, because employers are expected to deal with that. I appreciate that employers have a legal responsibility to create covid-secure environments, but there will be occasions when the workplace or the nature of the work mean that that is not possible. Will the Minister explain the Government’s position in respect of those situations, especially given that they are encouraging people to return to work where possible?
Regulation 3(2)(c) says that the requirement does not apply to
“any other person providing services in the relevant place under arrangements made with the person responsible for a relevant place”.
That is catchy; it trips off the tongue. The list of relevant places is in part 1 of schedule 1, but will the Minister explain who
“any other person providing services”
is intended to cover?
Part 2 of schedule 1 contains a list of premises where there is an exemption to the requirement for face coverings. Some, such as dentists, are obvious, but others, such as cinemas, theatres and libraries, require a little further explanation as to why they are exempt.
Will the Minister say a little more on that point?
These regulations were laid before Parliament on 23 July —the day after the House adjourned for the summer—despite the fact that they were announced on 14 July and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton pointed out, were discussed extensively for many weeks previously. As the Minister is acutely aware, the Opposition have repeatedly called for regulations to be debated before they come into force. I have raised the issue of new regulations being introduced and not debated until weeks later on every occasion that we have discussed coronavirus regulations. It is seven weeks later in this instance.
It was acknowledged when we were debating a previous set of regulations that the Government are aware of Parliament’s concerns about allowing the timely scrutiny of regulations, particularly in relation to the timing of the debates. The Government indicated that they would endeavour to hold the debate as soon as possible after the regulations were laid before Parliament. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial coronavirus regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat from the rising number of infections from what was, at the time, a new, unknown disease.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
To elaborate on the point about the timing, we understand that these things have to be introduced rapidly, and therefore it is not necessarily possible to carry out the legislative process quickly, but a debate is very important, as the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said. To return to paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum, the point is that these regulations were introduced in response to a serious and imminent threat to public health. The peak of the first wave was on 11 April —three and a half months earlier.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have, for now at least, got over the peak, although it seems that that may be changing. The explanation that the Government put forward at the time for the way these regulations were being introduced no longer applies. We have been dealing with this virus in this country for more than six months, and we really should be able to deal with legislation before it comes into force.
Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for these debates to be held in a timelier way to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite those multiple pleas and the Government’s assurances that they have listened to those concerns and are working hard to address the problem, it seems that, every time, we are still facing a rubber-stamping exercise seven weeks down the line. The Government think that that is enough to meet their democratic obligations; well, I disagree. Parliamentary scrutiny cannot be ditched because the timing is inconvenient. These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law.
Senior Government Members raised concerns about the way legislation is being introduced, in response to the statement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last Thursday. The weekend was full of senior Government Members raising concerns about the regulations that are coming into force today—again, without parliamentary scrutiny. It was not until about 11.45 pm last night—15 minutes before the regulations became law—that a copy of the new regulations appeared online. That gave people no time to examine them before they came into force, let alone allowing any opportunity for debate or scrutiny. That is no way to manage legislation or to govern. The Government’s handling of this pandemic has been too slow throughout, and they cannot continue to be slow in the way legislation is scrutinised.
I make this plea, as I have done on a number of other occasions: the Government should be aware that we remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. They can and should make the time to debate regulations before they become law. This week, former leaders of the Conservative party have been lining up to express their concerns about the Government’s proposals to act outside the law. Debating these issues before they become law is one way to restore public trust. It would say to people that the rule of law matters in this country, that the rules apply to everyone, that these restrictions are serious, not an optional extra, and that the Government do not consider themselves to be above the law.
We believe it is possible to arrange through the usual channels for these Committees to be set up at short notice, so that important regulations such as these are debated in a proper manner before they become law. If necessary, I will clear my diary to ensure the Opposition play their part in ensuring proper scrutiny and accountability for such regulations. We really do need to restore that—to get back to a position in which the rule of law is important in this country.
There also remains a question about why there was such a length of time between the announcement that these regulations were coming in and the laying of them. If the Government were really endeavouring to show they had listened, why did they not lay the regulations sooner, to ensure they were debated before recess and before they came into force? This concern was echoed in the other place, where a regret motion was tabled by Baroness Thornton. That motion said
“that this House welcomes the introduction of the Regulations, but regrets the delay in bringing forward the Regulations as Her Majesty’s Government has advised the public to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces since 11 May, announced that face coverings would be mandatory in shops from 24 July on 14 July, and laid these Regulations under the made affirmative procedure on 23 July; further regrets that this delay has caused confusion over where people will have to wear face coverings due to the absence of detailed legal requirements being available in advance; and notes the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 19th Report, published on 25 June, which urged Her Majesty’s Government ‘to ensure that the legislation follows on more closely from any announcement that they have made.’”
That sums up our concerns very neatly.
That regret motion also picks up on another issue that I am keen to raise, which is why it took so long for the Government to advise the public to wear face coverings, when the risks associated with airborne transmission were already known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said earlier, these matters were being debated for several months before they became law. The World Health Organisation has long recommended wearing face masks; the Secretary of State himself has warned about asymptomatic transmission, and his own advice, published on 11 May, advised in favour of wearing face masks.
Alec Shelbrooke
I want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on that point about the WHO recommending face masks, because it was not clear. It was a movable feast. Personally, I question the way in which face masks are being used, and I would like to see the issue debated, but that is a debate for another day. However, in defence of the decisions that were taken, I would challenge the hon. Gentleman on that particular point. I do not think the information from the WHO was entirely black and white; I think it was changing as it went along.
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is correct that the WHO position was not absolutely certain to start with, but it crystallised at a much earlier point than when these regulations were introduced. It is also the case that the Government’s own advice from 11 May was that face coverings ought to be worn, so the question is why it took two months to make this advice mandatory, and another 11 days for this measure to come into force. Given that the Government’s own guidance issued in May advised in favour of face coverings, one can presume that, at that point, it had been decided that the science told the Government that it was in the interests of public health to wear face coverings. I am therefore at a loss to understand why it took so long to make that advice mandatory. I hope that when the Minister responds, she is able to shed some light on that.
Matt Western
On that point, surely that was an inconsistency? If health professionals were being told to wear face masks in clinical settings, they surely had a purpose, did they not?
Justin Madders
It is fair to say that there is a difference between dealing with someone in a clinical setting and dealing with them on a day-to-day basis, but there is no doubt that, at a very early stage, there was evidence to suggest that the virus would be transmitting through the air. I think the reason it took so long to get where we ended up is to do with the question of how effective face coverings would be outside of a clinical setting. Nevertheless, the Government’s position was very clear from early May, yet it has taken until now for us to debate these regulations.
The regret motion also rightly raises concerns about the confusion that was caused regarding where people were required to wear face coverings, due to detailed legal requirements not having being made available in advance. I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that there was confusion at the time, given that Cabinet Ministers themselves appeared to be confused by the mixed messages. We all remember the debate on the Pret paradox that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was involved in. Within three days, the Prime Minister said he favoured face coverings, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he did not and the Justice Secretary said he was not sure, but he was perhaps in favour. That kind of conflicting advice and those confusing statements from Government are not helpful in our fight against the virus. We need clear communication from the Government. That is vital in combatting the spread of covid-19.
We needed it then, and we need it now. Going forward, clear and consistent messages about the wearing of face coverings are absolutely required. Clarity was also missing in the situation concerning schools reopening, with another 11th-hour U-turn from the Government on secondary school pupils being required to wear face coverings in school corridors in local lockdown areas in England—an announcement that was made just days before schools returned. Even then, new guidance that allows headteachers in any secondary school the flexibility to introduce masks in their schools was half-baked, leaving the National Education Union describing the way the decision had been reached as “slow” and “incoherent” and saying that it would not inspire confidence from parents or teachers. The National Association of Headteachers said:
“It is neither helpful nor fair to ask school leaders to make individual decisions about face coverings in their school.”
It has been reported that some universities require face coverings to be worn in all shared indoor spaces, including study settings, while others do not. Again, that responsibility should not be placed on individual institutions. Universities have been calling for clear national guidance on the use of face masks on campus to help reduce the spread of the virus. As many students have already returned to university, can the Minister say whether there will be any last-minute guidance for universities?
The regulations permit a relevant person, namely a police constable, a police community support officer or a TfL officer in
“any transport hub from or to which a TfL public transport service is provided”
to deny a person entry to the relevant place, or to direct members of the public to wear a face covering or to leave the relevant place if they are not wearing a face covering.
Mr Jones
It is actually worse than that. I have no problem with a community support officer or a police officer issuing someone with a fixed-penalty fine, because they have the training and expertise to do that. It does not sit comfortably with me that these regulations extend those powers to a large number of people who would not normally have the authority to give out such fines.
Justin Madders
The issue is that the police are not in a position to enforce this. That has been clear from what we have heard already.
Mr Jones
No, it is worse than that. I am comfortable with a police officer being able to issue the fine, but these regulations do not define what a TfL officer is. It could be anyone TfL decides. There is a catch-all later in the regulations that says they are
“a person designated by the Secretary of State.”
Surely, extending the ability to be able to issue a fine in that way is pretty draconian.
Justin Madders
It is an important point that we are giving, to use my right hon. Friend’s term, draconian powers to people, but that is deemed necessary to fight the spread of the virus. The issue that we on the Front Bench have is whether the resources and the appropriate training are following those powers. At the moment, it seems there is a huge gap.
Turning back to the powers, and the ability to issue fines and require people to move on, we need clarity on how those requirements will be enforced, as my right hon. Friend said in his intervention. When the legal requirement to wear a face covering when using public transport was introduced in June, and then in shops the following month, it clearly appeared that the police did not see it as their role to enforce that. I know from my own constituency that there is little enforcement happening on public transport. I have had multiple constituents complaining that when they go on buses and trains, some travellers seem able to travel without face coverings and are not being challenged. Bus companies say they will not put their drivers at risk. I mentioned Merseyrail earlier, which operates in my constituency on the railways, and it says that it has not been given the powers to intervene.
We have this strange situation where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, there seem to be very broad powers being given to a wide range of people, yet other people, who we would think are pretty obviously the right people to have them, have not been given them.
Mr Jones
As I said earlier, these are very London-centric regulations, because they refer to TfL but do not refer to other types of transport operators. However, the catch-all is in regulation 7(11)(d), which talks about the people who can give fines. It says that the authorised person will be
“a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation.”
There is no list in the explanatory memorandum of the people who could be authorised. Is there any guidance on that? There is nothing at all in the explanatory memorandum to say who is being given those powers. It could potentially be anybody.
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I do not know whether that power relates to the announcement last week about covid marshals; we are still waiting for further information on them. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify who that particular measure relates to and whether that power has been exercised at all so far, because, clearly, one of the things that we do not want to see, in terms of public confidence in and adherence to the rules, is people about whom we have had no warning or indication that they have the power to enforce these rules coming along and starting to do so. That will create friction, tension and uncertainty. We absolutely need crystal clear clarity from Government about who is able to enforce these rules and the circumstances in which they are able to do so.
I was referring to the problems on public transport, in particular, but the same problems arise in the retail sector. Many of the major supermarkets—Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons and the Co-op—have all said they will not ask their staff to police the rule, but will instead urge shoppers to play their part, through signs and public address announcements in store. Of course, it is absolutely right that most people do play their part, and that many people have legitimate reasons for not wearing a face covering, but it remains the case that there is an element out there who will not wear a face covering on a point of principle. I am not sure what that principle is, but it is causing difficulty.
A survey of shop workers carried out last month by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers found that 75% of shop workers had been abused by customers who were asked to socially distance, and almost half had experienced abuse as a result of asking shoppers to wear face masks. That is totally unacceptable; nobody should face abuse for asking people to comply with public health measures.
At the moment, however, I am concerned that such reprehensible behaviour by members of the public is going unpunished. In July, the Prime Minister increased the pressure on the police to uphold face mask laws. It was a task that was described as “impossible” by the national chair of the Police Federation, who said that forces did not have the staff or the resources to ensure compliance. We all know the pressures on the police and the reduction in their numbers that has happened over the last decade, so it is not enough for them to be handed additional responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources for them to be able to do their job. When the Minister responds, will she therefore set out what resources have been handed to the police to ensure that these measures are complied with?
Of course, as we have already referred to, the Prime Minister has announced that there will be covid marshals to enforce the new rule of six. Local council leaders, who it is assumed will take over responsibility for such marshals, have already said that they are not in a position to resource them, having already faced a significant multi-million pound shortfall in their finances this year. When the Minister responds, will she confirm whether covid marshals will be required to enforce the wearing of face coverings, as is possibly implied by the regulations, and if so, how will they be funded?
I understand absolutely the Government’s desire to try to get the economy moving again and to encourage people to go back to work and to shop, but those efforts will go unrewarded if people do not feel confident enough to go out because they feel, and indeed see, that the rules on face coverings are not being properly enforced.
In her opening speech, the Minister talked about the importance of confidence for people returning to the workplace and for retail. It is really important that that confidence is supported by a rigorous and universal enforcement regime. In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how many fixed penalty notices have been issued so far under these regulations, and whether she has any details of the geographical areas or physical settings where penalties have been issued in greater numbers.
Finally, I will say a few words on the converse situation—people who are exempted from wearing coverings and why. I am sure that many Members will have been contacted by concerned constituents who, when they have been shopping, felt uncomfortable at the numbers of people not wearing a mask, or who have actually been confronted with abuse as a result of not doing so. We see stories in the press about people unable to comply with wearing a face covering for health reasons being challenged and abused and then being afraid to go out. Many charities, including Mind, Dementia UK, the National Autistic Society, Mencap, Asthma UK and Sense, have called on the Government to mount a public awareness campaign about hidden disabilities and the mask exemption rules, which allow for those who find it difficult because of physical or mental illness or disability, those who assist someone who relies on lip reading to communicate and those for whom wearing a mask could cause severe distress to be exempted from wearing a face covering in shops or on public transport. The Minister said in her opening remarks that there had been a public awareness campaign, and indicated that it might be “ramped up”, to use her terminology, so I will be grateful if she could advise on when we are likely to see that, given that these rules are likely to be in place for some time to come.
I will also be grateful if the Minister could say a little about the “severe distress” exemption. I do not want to spell out some of the reasons why people may need to rely on such an exemption, but as it is a subjective and broad exemption, it is open to misuse. Is the Minister aware of individuals who, when challenged, have sought to rely on such an exemption inappropriately, and the response of the enforcement body?
On the point of being able to communicate, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, I am sure that many of us have been contacted by constituents concerned about the impact of the use of face coverings on deaf people and those with hearing loss who rely on lip reading and facial expressions to communicate. Back in June, the Government confirmed that they had been in discussion with audiologists in the NHS about the use of face coverings and what can be done to reduce the impact on those who rely on lip reading, so can the Minister update us on what steps the Government are taking to ensure all their face covering policies are inclusive for people who may have hearing loss?
In conclusion, we will not seek to divide the Committee on these regulations, but, as I hope I have shown in raising a number of issues, I believe that our democratic process deserves better than for such an important law to be debated so long after it has come into force. I hope the Government finally act on those concerns and hand back control to this Parliament.
Graham Stringer
It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Mr Twigg. This is first time I have served under your chairmanship, and I look forward to doing so on many further occasions.
There are a number of things I would like to say about this statutory instrument. Some relate to process, some to science and some are political. On the process, the Minister, for whom I have every respect, made the point that these regulations last for only 12 months, which is absolutely right. However, the downside is that when regulations last for only 12 months, no regulatory impact assessment is required. A regulatory impact assessment would of course have answered some of the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. That is to be regretted, but it is part of a bigger lack of scrutiny, which I will come to in a minute.
First, I want to make a very general point. I do not envy the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, any Health Minister, or, indeed, any Minister from other parts of the Government who has to deal with these issues. They are really difficult. People have died. It is difficult to know what to do. When Ministers and the public pray in aid science—of course science should be looked at—I think people sometimes misunderstand its capabilities. If someone wanted to find the escape velocity of a rocket to leave the earth’s gravitational pull, they should go to an astrophysicist, who would give the exact figures. If they are given the weight of the rocket, they will be able to say the force required to reach that velocity, because physics in that sense is an exact science.
The science surrounding this pandemic is not exact and cannot be exact, partly because it is a new virus and people do not know anything. I suspect it will surprise members of the Committee to know that, as far as I am aware, in real situations or in laboratories, no experiments have taken place on covid-19. We are relying on experiments on other germs, bugs, viruses and bacteria, and on other kinds of experiments.
I will come back to the science, but the biggest point, on which I think I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, is that there should be much more scrutiny of this legislation. I recently read the Lords Hansard from when the Coronavirus Act 2020 was passed. In that debate, phrases were used such as, “It would normally be anathema to a democratic Parliament to pass these regulations,” and, “Unprecedented powers are being given to the Government.”
The Minister in the Lords gave all the assurances one would have expected him to give: at the appropriate time, when these wide and extensive powers were used, there would be proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is not just about this SI—there have been many such statutory instruments laid and used, in terms of levels of fines and what is and is not against the law, that have yet to receive parliamentary scrutiny. We have been back here for some time. That is a breach of trust, given that all the parties gave the Government support for the Coronavirus Act 2020.
To go back to the science, one problem Ministers have is that most of them do not have a scientific background and, therefore, have not challenged the scientific advice, which cannot be that precise. In early April, the deputy chief medical officer said that masks should not be worn and that they even have a negative effect. I can understand why Ministers followed that. A few days later, on 16 April, the Secretary of State for Transport said that wearing masks would have a negative effect. In the next month, masks were introduced on transport and now we have them in shops and all sorts of places. Challenging the advice and asking for its source in the first place might have led Ministers to reach different decisions earlier, and even to different decisions leading to this SI.
Most of the evidence on masks has come from experiments with mannequins, which are difficult to do, conducted in laboratory settings, not real settings, so when the Government’s scientific adviser and other scientists say that there is no evidence that masks work, they are right, partly because no experiments have been done on this virus. Also, in the experiments and work that have been done we have not had the scientific gold standard of being able to test one experiment against a double-blind experiment.
That is part of the science background. The Government now come along and said that there is some evidence to suggest that, when used correctly, face coverings might have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of getting the virus, but common sense and the non-covid experiments tell us that. The Government advise putting a scarf over one’s face or getting a mask, which is actually not in line with the World Health Organisation’s recommendations. Following experiments conducted not on the virus but by firing laser beams at masks in Australia, published in the Thorax journal, the World Health Organisation recommended that three-layer masks are better than two-layer masks. The Welsh Government have followed that recommendation of having three layers. Our Government say that two is probably okay, but people can do anything they want. Having moved from saying that masks were of no use to saying they are now of some use, they are not using the best scientific advice, which the Welsh Government are using, to advise on which masks should be worn. I think that is a mistake. We have to go one way or the other. It is understandable that Ministers do not always challenge the advice.
When I asked what the latest evidence was, I expected the Minister to say that there was a large meta-study done by Professor Melinda Mills of the Leverhulme Centre in Oxford. It was not fundamental research, but the study looked across the board at all the papers that had been done and found that 120 countries were advising on masks, so we would have been massively out of step not to follow the advice. I realise that the original advice was not in accordance with that, but the Government could probably have moved earlier and more effectively, with parliamentary scrutiny, to the conclusion that they have reached. The Lancet, which has criticised the Government’s tardiness and slowness on this matter, and could have argued with Professor Van-Tam and any of the other advisers, has pointed out that lack of evidence does not mean the evidence is not there. They could quite easily have challenged those things.
Finally, on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham made, I was at a meeting at the weekend with leaders of local authorities and some of the Greater Manchester MPs and there was no support from anybody for the Government’s proposals on marshals. Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that untrained marshals will not be given enforcement powers that would normally lie with well-trained public health officials or the police? The last thing we want is busybody marshals upsetting members of the public by being over-officious. The confusion of the Government’s messages in this and other areas has meant that many members of the public, particularly younger people, have lost trust in the Government’s message and are no longer following it. What would make that situation worse was if we had untrained marshals throwing their weight about and upsetting the public so that there was even less support for what might well be necessary regulations.
Mr Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton on the lack of scrutiny of much of this legislation, and even a cursory glance at the regulations shows that we are extending quite draconian powers to people who, in my opinion, should not have them.
My hon. Friend just referred to mixed messages. Well, we are putting mixed messages in legislation here, and I have to say, if it had been properly debated, some of those things would have been questioned. He mentioned marshals, for example, which I will come to in a minute.
I want to pick up on the issue of sign language, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell. It is referred to in the legislation under reasonable excuses, but it is portrayed in a very strange way. Regulation 4(b) states that a person—“P”—has a reasonable excuse if:
“P is accompanying, or providing assistance to, another person (“B”) and B relies on lip reading to communicate with P”.
Are we saying that anybody who lipreads needs someone else and they must go around in twos? Clearly, if someone lipreads, they often do it when they are on their own. Is the legislation saying that the only time that they would be exempt is when they had someone with them? Is that what the Minister is saying? That, frankly, is bonkers.
I know a lot of people who lipread and they do not need someone accompanying them all the time to go about their business. To put that in the regulations just shows sloppiness—reading some of the things in the instrument, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I find it disturbing, to be honest, that that is being written into the legislation as “reasonable”. A reasonable excuse should be that someone relies on lip reading, for example.
I will come to some of the other things that I think are draconian. I do not consider myself a libertarian, but I question when the state starts interfering in people’s lives to such an extent where I do not think it needs to and whereby, in doing so, it causes the opposite effect from what the Government are trying to achieve, which is to stop the transmission of the virus.
That brings me to my transport theme, which I will start with the definition of transport hubs in regulation 2(4):
“In these Regulations, ‘transport hub’ means any premises used as a station, terminal, port or other similar premises from or to which a public transport service operates”.
That is pretty straightforward—I think we would all agree with that—but then it goes on to an interesting point. It says that that does not include
“(a) an area which is not open to the public;
(b) an area where seating or tables are made available for the consumption of food and drink”,
so, does that mean that a transport hub with tables where people can have cups of coffee from the kiosk is not a transport hub? By this definition, it does. I can think of quite a few transport hubs that have cafés and kiosks selling teas and coffees, and seating areas where people sit to eat and drink, but if I am reading the legislation correctly, those are not classified as transport hubs.
Then we come on to the draconian measures of actually dishing fines out. Again, as I said earlier, the measure is London-centric. I would like the Minister to clarify the role of police officers, which here is quite strange. The regulations refer to “a constable”,
“a police community support officer”,
and
“in relation to any transport hub from or to which a TfL public transport service is provided, a TfL officer”.
Finally, they specify
“a person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation.”
Those are the four categories.
First, as to the category of constable, not all police officers are constables. There are sergeants and inspectors. Does that definition cover all those? Is it only someone of the rank of constable who can issue a fine? Community support officers are defined in legislation. I served on the Bill Committee many years ago, when the Conservative party opposed them.
What is the definition of a Transport for London officer? Who are they? Is it left to TfL to decide who they are, or is it only certain people who already have enforcement powers? Finally, there is the
“person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this regulation.”
There is no list of those individuals in the explanatory notes, which brings us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton about marshals. Will they be given such powers?
As an example, let me take Durham city bus station, which is run by the county council. I think that it is open to the public but on private land. There are operatives there who clean the area and operate the bus station. They clearly do not have the same powers as TfL. Nor do I imagine do the people at many other bus stations. It concerns me not only that definition is lacking on TfL, but that there is a long list of other people who could have quite draconian powers to hand out fines.
Even if the Minister cannot provide it tonight, I would like a list of the individuals who are covered. That would make a difference: as my hon. Friend said, we have no problem with police officers enforcing laws—or community support officers, for that matter—because they have the training and expertise to issue fixed penalty fines and other things, but it sits uncomfortably with me that some person designated by TfL could suddenly have those powers, or, for that matter, anyone else the Secretary of State deems fit to give them to. Again, this is going against what the Government are trying to do.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the science around face masks. In the past months and weeks, the Government have said they are following the science, but are clearly not; they send contradictory messages—and so do the regulations, all over the place. These measures will give individuals powers that I do not think we should give them, and it would have been better if the Government had gone down the route of saying, “What is common sense?”
Clearly, there is currently a spike in cases, but people are not wearing masks in pubs and restaurants, are they, in large numbers? That is why we have had the nonsense this weekend about the rule of six. The important point is that if we are going to bring in measures, they must be proportional—but they must also be explained to people. I do not think that the Government have done that. They have made things worse, with contradictory bits of advice. Frankly, if the public knew the Government were going to give powers to untrained individuals to issue fixed penalty fines, then, no. The sensible approach to face masks is surely advice and support, rather than going down this route.
Alec Shelbrooke
I will take a few moments to say some things to the Minister. I genuinely mean them as helpful comments, and I do not expect her to be able to answer them today. I will let her off the hook with that, and there are things to take away. I have a concern that has been explored slightly with the discussion of covid marshals, and it relates to data protection. We do not have the information on how some people will become covid marshals. Is it something that they volunteer for?
In my village, there is somebody—I will not name names—who has a very respectable profession but is known throughout the village for stealing personal information. He steals people’s personal phones, downloads the information and then causes trouble by texting and all sorts of things like that. We all know who it is. They could use their profession to become a covid marshal, and then they would get such data. I want to make a point to the Minister to take back to the Department and the Government, because I know she cannot answer my question today. What data protection provisions will be put in place for covid marshals? I assume that people will have to hand over quite a lot of personal data if they are stopped by somebody, and I have a genuine concern about the protection of that data.
Ms Dorries
On the point about covid marshals and data protection, we will get back to my right hon. Friend. A number of points have been made in a holistic and wide-ranging way by different people, and I will try to answer the specifics as much as I can. If I do not cover them all, hon. Members can shout at me; we will certainly ensure that they receive answers by tomorrow.
I will first address some of the wider points about lip reading, because there is some kind of misinterpretation of this. Somebody who has a disability, including deafness, does not have to wear a mask, nor does the person assisting someone. If a deaf person goes up to somebody in a shop and asks for help, the shop worker can remove their mask to provide assistance if they are told, “I can only lip read.” The assistant helping somebody with a disability or helping somebody to find their way—whatever need they have—can remove their mask. I wanted to make that clear.
Reference has been made to the fact that people are not wearing masks in pubs and restaurants, but they are socially distancing. There are hand sanitisers when people enter. As pubs and restaurants are keeping their staff safe, they are being very careful about how their clientele use their premises. I want to reiterate a point that I made in my opening speech: 96% of people wear masks.
On the question of why this took so long and the scientific evidence—a question that has been raised in a number of ways—we as politicians did not decide that it was now time for people to start wearing masks. That information comes to the Government and to politicians via a number of filters. It comes from SAGE. It then goes to the chief medical officer, the deputy chief medical officers—Jenny Harries and Jonathan Van-Tam—and, I think, Professor Stringer, our chief scientific officer. We then take the advice from the Behavioural Insights Team; we take the advice that we are given by the scientists.
The Welsh Government have been mentioned. They have their own chief medical officer and their own advisers. They take their advice; they are devolved. We do not tell them when people in Wales should start wearing masks, and they do not tell us. We have our own established scientific body of advice. We do not say to SAGE, “We don’t like your advice today. We’ll go and take it from somewhere else.” We are consistently advised by SAGE and by NERVTAG. When they tell us that the evidence now is such that people should start wearing masks because there will be some benefits, we will take it. In fact, people were wearing masks before we brought in the legislation. The public had already made their mind up, whether they had the scientific evidence or not, that they would start wearing masks, and indeed they were.
That is where we add. As politicians, we do not say, “Do you know what? It is time for everyone to start wearing masks.” We do not have the authority, the scientific background or the evidence—
Ms Dorries
No, because every policy dealing with covid has to be based on evidence and scientific facts. We have always followed the science and we are still doing that today.
Graham Stringer
Is the Minister saying that the advice given to the Welsh Government was different from that given to the United Kingdom Government, dealing with England in this case? Secondly, we on the Science and Technology Committee have had all the scientific advisers before us on a number of occasions and they have been clear that they lay the evidence before Ministers and they may give advice, but, in the final analysis, it is for Ministers to take the decision, which may differ from the detail of the advice, or the advice may have to be interpreted. They are clear that it is not their decision. Does she agree with that?
Ms Dorries
On the hon. Member’s point about who advises the Welsh Government, I have no idea. I would imagine it is their chief medical officer. On whether the scientists take the decision about whether people wear masks, no, they do not. That is not their responsibility. Their responsibility is to evaluate and assimilate evidence and provide us with that evidence.
Mr Jones
I am sorry if the Minister wants to be flippant, but it is my job to look at the legislation and scrutinise it. She said that 96% have no problems with it. I never believe in putting forward legislation if there is no need.
I am sorry, but the Minister is wrong in what she just said. It is down to politicians to make the ultimate decision. I have been a Minister, and there are occasions when advice can be ignored—that is a political decision. It is no good hiding behind the scientists, which is what the Government have done all the way through the crisis.
Ms Dorries
This is the decision. That is what we are here debating—the decision to introduce the wearing of face coverings in public places. We have taken the decision; that is what we are doing right now.
I was asked why we were so slow to react to the wearing of face masks. It is because, to come here and introduce legislation, we needed evidence that wearing face masks works. As I think the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, this is a new virus—globally, not just for the UK—and all over the world countries have taken their own decisions on the basis of whatever evidence they could gather over a short period and in a short timeframe. We have now got to the point where we believe the evidence is such that wearing a mask will provide protection even if the wearer is asymptomatic, not showing symptoms of coronavirus and not coughing. Therefore, we are introducing the regulations.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that these things do take some time, but it is the case, is it not, that recommendations were made on 11 May about the wearing of face coverings, but they did not become law until 24 July? What is the reason for that long delay?
Ms Dorries
I want to be absolutely clear myself before I give a response, so I will come back to the hon. Member on that in the morning.
Graham Stringer
I want to make a point similar to the one I made in the Minister’s opening contribution. What was the evidence, when was it given to Ministers, and what meant we had to wait until recess before the decision was taken? That is key to me. I am sure that if she was in opposition, she would be making exactly the same point.
Ms Dorries
We know each other too well.
I want to ensure that what I give the hon. Gentleman is an absolutely accurate statement; therefore, I will give it to him in the morning in writing.
I will stick to the substance of the issues that were raised. On the comments about transport police, the British Transport police outside London have the authority and they use their four Es: engagement, encouragement—
Ms Dorries
Again, I will clarify that. They might not be in these regulations, but this is about not just Transport for London, but British Transport police across the UK.
On the point about people eating in cafeterias in transport hubs, of course people cannot eat through a mask. When people are purchasing food, or are sitting at a table eating and drinking, they obviously do not have to wear a mask.
Mr Jones
I am sorry, but that is not what the regulations say. It is in the definition of what a transport hub is. I will read it again:
“In these Regulations, “transport hub” means any…premises used as a station, terminal, port or other similar premises from or to which a public transport service operates, but does not include…an area which is not open to the public;…an area where seating or tables are made available for the consumption of food and drink”.
Surely a transport hub that has tables for food and drink is not classed as a transport hub under the definition in the regulations.
Ms Dorries
Areas that are open to the public, where people are purchasing food, drink or refreshments, do not require the wearing of a mask. Again, I will clarify the wording to the right hon. Gentleman in writing, but that is the advice that I have been given. It beggars belief that anybody could consume food or drink while wearing a mask, but I will ensure that I clarify that information to him.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On reading this, I think it is very clear. If I dare say so, the right hon. Member for North Durham is misunderstanding what the Government policy is. Areas where there is food and drink in a transport hub are excluded from these regulations, so people do not have to wear a mask there them. I think it is really quite straightforward.
Ms Dorries
They are exempt.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of regulation 3(2)(c), which is intended to capture contractors working on site, medical practices, and those who are best placed to advise about their own medical practices—both people working in the medical practices and patients.
I would like to thank hon. Members. If there are any points that require a more detailed response, we will ensure—
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Western
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. In response to her honest offer, I am sure everyone would welcome urgent clarification about the role of covid marshals and the powers that they will have. Clearly, they are referred to under regulation 7(11)(d). Quite how they will be funded and what the powers are is a separate issue. The emphasis that the Prime Minister and the Government are giving to the new covid marshals seems disproportionate to the reality of what will happen on the street. I do not believe that the authorities will actually be able to deliver that, and they will rely on the police.
Ms Dorries
It was an honest offer, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives that information.
Justin Madders
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I promise that I will not intervene again.
What we have heard today from various Members is clear evidence of why it is important that regulations are debated before they become law. There is a whole series of questions in relation to covid marshals, in particular, and their powers and training and the data protection requirements that we are not able to answer. The point has been made by several Members that it is really important for public buy-in to the concept of those marshals that the powers are clear and they have democratic consent because they have been transparently debated, so can the Minister make a commitment today that any new powers given to marshals, whoever they end up being, will be debated in this House before they become law?
Ms Dorries
No, I cannot; I apologise. I will obtain the list of those who have the authority and ensure that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has that tomorrow. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, I am sure, was trying his hand when he asked his question. He did so knowing very well that that is not something that I can commit to.
Ms Dorries
In this new world of coronavirus and covid-19, we as a Government have to have the right to respond, both urgently and in the case of an emergency, when we need to keep the public safe and to save lives. We have to retain the ability to do that.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised one other point that I would like to address. He talked about universities and further education and face coverings. Actually, this has been really interesting, because many universities are very enthusiastic about developing their own policies. They are keen to get their students back in. They are keen to get up and running in a way that is as “back to normal” as it can be in the context of social distancing, and the wearing of a face mask is something that many universities have themselves required. They have done their own messaging to students. I have seen some of this. “Don’t kill your nan” was quite extreme; that was at one university in my own home city. Universities have very much taken on board the fact that they want to keep their campuses safe, and they are launching their own campaigns.
Matt Western
I echo those points. For example, the University of Warwick has done a terrific job in terms of its preparation on campus and is doing its very best to ensure safety among the community off campus. However, this then comes back to what is beyond their remit and what actually happens in communities such as Durham, probably, or Warwick and Leamington—my community—where students quite rightly will be back for the new term; some will be starting and will be there for the first time, and they will be out, in among the population. That is why these sorts of enforcement measures are so important.
Ms Dorries
The measures that we are taking to ensure the wearing of face masks in public places are to ensure that we try to contain the virus as much as we can, in the light of the fact that of course students do move from their university. They travel back home at the weekend. They move back into the community. They will be in student houses. Their community mixes. They have house parties, as they do. These are the kinds of thing that we are trying to prevent with the regulations that we are bringing in, so that those students can keep attending university and keep learning. The universities have taken responsibility for what happens on campus; we have taken responsibility for what happens off campus via the rule of six, the new legislation that we have introduced as of today, and via the measures such as the one that we are debating today on the wearing of face coverings. Keeping everybody safe is the only objective of anything that the Government are doing in terms of the legislation that they are introducing. None of this is political. It is about keeping people safe. That is the bottom line with everything we introduce in terms of regulations and any measures to do with coronavirus and covid-19.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. They have been many and interesting, and we will respond to those that I have not been able to answer. The Government have always been clear that their highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. I am satisfied that the requirements imposed by the regulations and the enforcement powers given to police and Transport for London are reasonable and proportionate, with regulations specifying appropriate exemptions and reasonable excuses.
Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that to protect themselves, they must continue to follow the social distancing measures, wash their hands regularly and adhere to the isolation guidance. The current guidance from Government states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces where social distancing is more difficult to maintain and where people may come into contact with others that they do not normally meet.
The debate today has provided an opportunity for the Government to hear hon. Members’ concerns through the contributions made during the debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is obviously vital as part of the regulation-making process.
I would just like to correct the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell earlier. It is not necessary for this regulation to be debated in six months; it will be reviewed in six months, but will fall anyway 12 months after 24 July, when the regulations were made. I hope that the Committee has found this debate informative and that it will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No 791).
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris
I am pleased to hear that the Minister is having robust conversations with the Saudis, but will the UK Government publicly call on the Saudi authorities to immediately and unconditionally release the five women human rights defenders who are still being detained, including Loujain al-Hathloul, Samar Badawi and Nassima al-Sada, and for all charges to be dropped against the 13 women’s rights defenders currently on trial for peaceful protest and activism?
James Cleverly
It is important that we recognise that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is taking significant steps in the right direction, and we encourage and support it to do so. The Foreign Secretary raised the release of those human rights defenders face-to-face on his visit to Riyadh just last month.
[Official Report, 8 September 2020, Vol. 679, c. 488.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris).
The correct response should have been:
James Cleverly
It is important that we recognise that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is taking significant steps in the right direction, and we encourage and support it to do so. The Foreign Secretary raised the cases of those human rights defenders face-to-face on his visit to Riyadh.
Education
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The Government will fund local authorities for our free childcare entitlements for the rest of this calendar year at the pre-covid levels of attendance, even if fewer children are present, so early years providers will continue to benefit from the £3.6 billion investment in the provision this financial year. We have also announced supplementary funding of up to £23 million for maintained nursery schools, which often care for higher numbers of disadvantaged pupils, and will continue to work with local authorities to monitor the sector.
Ms Buck
I thank the Minister for that answer, but last week research was published by the TUC showing that four out of 10 working mothers either did not have or could not rely on childcare to enable them to return to work. Of those, a quarter could not rely on having a nursery place. Given that there is already a £660 million gap in early years funding, what is the Minister doing to make sure that we do not see a further loss of early years providers in the coming months?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Childcare is vital for working parents, which is why this Government introduced the 30-hour entitlement and why we are investing £3.6 billion in early years this year. Breakfast and after-school clubs are also able to open and schools should be working to resume this provision from the start of this term. We have updated our guidance for providers. Any parent who may be struggling to find early years provision should contact their local authority, but I hope the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the funding for maintained nursery schools, including three in her constituency.
[Official Report, 7 September 2020, Vol. 679, c. 352.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).
The correct response should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The Government will fund local authorities for our free childcare entitlements for the rest of this calendar year at the pre-covid levels of attendance, even if fewer children are present, so early years providers will continue to benefit from the planned £3.6 billion investment in the provision this financial year. We have also announced supplementary funding of up to £23 million for maintained nursery schools, which often care for higher numbers of disadvantaged pupils, and will continue to work with local authorities to monitor the sector.
Ms Buck
I thank the Minister for that answer, but last week research was published by the TUC showing that four out of 10 working mothers either did not have or could not rely on childcare to enable them to return to work. Of those, a quarter could not rely on having a nursery place. Given that there is already a £660 million gap in early years funding, what is the Minister doing to make sure that we do not see a further loss of early years providers in the coming months?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Childcare is vital for working parents, which is why this Government introduced the 30-hour entitlement and why we are planning to spend over £3.6 billion on the entitlements this year. Breakfast and after-school clubs are also able to open and schools should be working to resume this provision from the start of this term. We have updated our guidance for providers. Any parent who may be struggling to find early years provision should contact their local authority, but I hope the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the funding for maintained nursery schools, including three in her constituency.
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK’s Future Relationship with the EU
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government have made a commitment to update Parliament on the progress of our future relationship negotiations with the EU. This statement provides an update on the eighth round of negotiations.
Led by the UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, negotiators from the UK and the EU held discussions in London on 8 to10 September 2020. There were substantive discussions on almost all issues.
Discussions covered all workstreams including:
Trade in goods: core areas of the goods elements of the FTA, including the UK’s regulatory regime on SPS and proposals for product specific rules of origin.
Trade in services, investment and other FTA issues: including professional qualifications, investment, telecommunications and intellectual property (including geographical indications).
Fisheries: quota-sharing and stock lists.
“Level playing field”: covering subsidies, tax and dispute settlement.
Energy: including civil nuclear co-operation, nuclear safety and electricity trading.
Transport: road haulage standards, aviation security and air traffic management (ATM).
Law enforcement: including mutual legal assistance, Prüm, extradition, and criminal records exchange.
Mobility and social security co-ordination: social security co-ordination arrangements.
Participation in Union programmes: financial management, EGNOS (European geostationary navigation overlay service), EU SST (space surveillance and tracking) and Peace+.
These were useful exchanges. However, a number of challenging areas remain and the divergences on some are still significant. We have been consistently clear from the start of this process about the basis on which agreement is possible between us and these fundamentals remain.
We remain committed to working hard to reach agreement by the middle of October, as the Prime Minister set out in his statement of 7 September. Negotiators have agreed to meet again, as planned in line with the terms of reference, in Brussels this week to continue discussions.
[HCWS451]
Serious Violence Reduction Orders
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Every knife crime is a tragedy, and any victim is one too many. The Government are taking action on every level to cut crime and make our streets safer, but we know there is much more to do to protect the public and end the scourge of serious violence.
The case for urgent action is clear. In the year to March 2020 alone, 256 people were stabbed to death in England and Wales. Recorded knife crime rose to 46,265 in the same period, with a staggering 4,547 weapons offences committed by children last year. Thousands of people are seeking hospital treatment for stab wounds each year, with some offences never reported.
To save lives and prevent injury we must stop serious violence from happening in the first place. Too many people who carry knives and weapons go on to offend time and again, with 29% of offenders in 2019 having previous convictions. Our determination to break this deadly cycle of persistent offending led to our manifesto commitment to introduce serious violence reduction orders (SVROs).
Frontline police have long told us that stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on violent crime; it acts as a deterrent and helps keep knives and weapons off our streets. We have listened to them, and to the recommendation of the Centre for Social Justice, to propose a new court order to bear down on known offenders. These SVROs would give the police personalised powers to target those already convicted of certain knife offences—giving them the automatic right to search those who pose the greatest risk. These searches could take place without suspicion so that these known criminals could be stopped at any time.
The intention is for SVROs to complement existing stop and search powers and to prevent known offenders carrying weapons with impunity. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, a court would have the power to impose them following conviction for any relevant offence. They could then set the length of the order, which would apply from the moment the offender walked free, either while on licence or where there was no immediate jail time. The offender would then be more likely to be stopped by the police and searched to see if they are carrying a knife again. If caught out they would be brought back before the court where they could expect to receive a custodial sentence under the existing “two strikes” legislation brought in by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
SVROs would empower the police to stop and challenge those who are known to carry knives. They will help to keep communities safer by giving officers a tool to help tackle the most dangerous offenders.
The Government hope that they will also help the police more effectively target their approach. We know that stop and search disproportionally affects black people, with the latest figures showing they are 9.7 times more likely to be stopped than those who were white. We are clear that no one should ever be targeted because of the colour of their skin.
We are consulting on the design of SVROs and welcome views on how we can ensure these important tools are used appropriately. Anyone with an interest in this important issue is invited to contribute, including those involved in law enforcement, victims of knife crime and their families.
This consultation will help inform our next steps in the fight against serious violence. It will run from Monday 14 September to Sunday 8 November, and will be available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/serious-violence-reduction-orders.
I will also place a copy of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS450]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
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.
Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce a statutory instrument laid before the House on 6 July. These regulations form part of the corporate insolvency and restructuring regime introduced in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act. I am satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act introduced corporate restructuring tools which include a moratorium and a restructuring plan which offer breathing space and flexibility to keep companies going. These regulations provide the board of the Pension Protection Fund, the statutory compensation scheme, with creditors’ rights in certain specified circumstances when a company, a limited liability partnership or a certain charitable incorporated organisation obtains a moratorium from creditor action or proposes to restructure their business, as applicable, under the new processes available in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act.
I had expected also to introduce another set of related regulations for debate. However, we are working with the relevant government department to resolve a technical legal issue. We intend to re-make and lay those regulations with a debate scheduled for a later date.
The regulations we are debating provide the board of the Pension Protection Fund, the statutory compensation scheme, with creditors’ rights in certain specified circumstances. They include when a company, a limited liability partnership or a certain charitable incorporated organisation obtains a moratorium from creditor action or proposes to restructure its business, as applicable. The pension scheme is eligible for the Pension Protection Fund and is directly affected. A moratorium gives companies an opportunity to explore rescue and restructuring options free from creditor action. A restructuring plan will enable struggling companies to negotiate restructuring arrangements to give them the best possible chance of continuing as a going concern.
Under existing pensions legislation, similar corporate rescue processes are treated as insolvency events. This triggers a number of safeguards. When such an event occurs in relation to an employer of an eligible occupational pension scheme, the Pension Protection Fund assesses the scheme and, among other things, takes over the scheme trustees’ or managers’ role as a creditor of the sponsoring employer. Neither moratoriums nor restructuring plans are listed as insolvency events in the relevant pensions legislation as this would undermine the overarching intention to maximise the company’s chance of survival. Therefore, the normal safeguards within the legislation are not engaged.
During the passage of the Bill, there was significant stakeholder and parliamentary pressure to provide specific protections in the new moratorium and restructuring plan procedures in respect of the impact on pension schemes. The concern is that these procedures could result in the pension scheme, as an unsecured creditor of the company, being disadvantaged. The Pension Protection Fund could face a greater loss if the company subsequently fails and the scheme falls into the fund with a larger deficit than it originally had, so there is a need to build in some specific protections by ensuring that the Pension Protection Fund has a seat at the table in any relevant restructuring proposal.
These regulations ensure that the new moratorium and restructuring plans do not leave pension schemes and the Pension Protection Fund without appropriate protections in legislation. We have expedited the making and laying of these regulations to minimise gaps in the legislation after the moratorium and restructuring plan measures came into force. This ensures that the Pension Protection Fund is in a position to act quickly in a fast-moving situation to protect its interests and those of its levy payers. The regulations enable the Pension Protection Fund board to step into the shoes of the scheme trustees or managers in their role as a creditor in the context of the new moratorium and restructuring processes, in relevant specified circumstances, to ensure that the board’s interests and those of the scheme are properly represented. In relation to the moratorium, they provide for the Pension Protection Fund to act in place of the scheme trustees or managers as a creditor in decision-making that may be ordered by the court following a challenge to the directors’ actions and where creditor consent is sought on whether the moratorium should be extended.
Where a restructuring plan is proposed in respect of a relevant entity, and where in the relevant specified circumstances the scheme trustees or managers would otherwise exercise creditors’ voting rights, the board of the Pension Protection Fund will have the exclusive right to vote on the plan. By enabling the Pension Protection Fund to exercise creditor rights, the fund will be protected against the risk of an agreement being struck without it being involved. This will avoid a scheme continuing without adequate protection knowing that the fund will pick up the pieces. The Pension Protection Fund is funded mainly by a levy collected from pension schemes, so it would be levy payers who suffer the loss.
The scheme trustees or managers are not completely excluded, however; they too play an important role protecting members’ interests. To provide the appropriate balance, before the Pension Protection Fund exercises any voting rights or participates in a decision-making process to the exclusion of the scheme trustees or managers, it will be required to consult them. Also, certain rights will be exercisable concurrently, such as the right to participate in meetings ordered by the court and the right to make representations to the court, as applicable.
The moratorium and restructuring plan are important measures that will give companies the best prospect of survival in this period of economic uncertainty. We must also ensure that they do not undermine the protections for pensions schemes, the Pension Protection Fund and its levy payers. I commend these regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome these urgently needed regulations so that the PPF can exercise creditor rights as the trustee of a defined benefit pension scheme in the event of a moratorium or restructuring proposal. The regulations allow the PPF involvement in discussions, processes and court access with significant implications not only for the members of a particular scheme but for all existing and potential members of the PPF lifeboat and employer levy payers.
The exercising of creditor rights by the PPF in consultation with trustees reflects what happens now in other relevant insolvency and restructuring events. They evolved from the Pensions Act 2004, and the Government have rightly recognised the moral hazard in leaving powers to exercise creditor rights wholly with the trustees. The trustees may not have the resources and power that the PPF can bring to bear. The PPF considers the interests of a scheme and the wider interests of all DB scheme members. There will be anxious pension scheme members at this very moment who are taking comfort from the PPF’s very existence. The trustees could, for example, sign up for a high-risk deal on the basis that it failed the PPF would ensure a minimum level of protection for scheme members and leave the lifeboat to inherit a greater deficit. Giving these powers to the PPF allows it to balance all interests—a good outcome for scheme members, mitigating subsequent large claims on the PPF or perverse attempts to dump pension liabilities.
I refer again to the Arcadia case. The original CVA proposed to cut deficit reduction contributions by half. The PPF, exercising creditor rights, influenced a better outcome, including security over group assets, £100 million in cash and increases in deficit contributions after three years. While welcoming these regulations, they do not close off all concerns proposed by the new moratorium arrangements, such as the incidence of gaming by current or future lenders wanting access to super-priority status; avoidance of pension liabilities and incentivising insolvency over rescue for certain creditors; the non-triggering of a scheme Section 75 debt impacting its creditors’ standing and voting rights; and the imposition of a payment holiday on a scheme’s deficit contributions but exempting finance debt payments from that holiday.
The Government made amendments to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which, they argued, sought to address these risks. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said,
“the Government believe that these amendments remove the risk of gaming the system … but we appreciate that the financial services industry … changes over time. For this reason, my amendments include a power to make regulations … to change the definitions of moratorium debt and priority pre-moratorium debt … As these are the debts that receive super-priority or additional protection, the Government will be able to react quickly and decisively to any changes in market behaviour.”—[Official Report, 23/6/20; col. 154.]
Although real concerns remain, these were welcome concessions in so far as they allow the Government, if they so choose, to respond quickly to gaming and perverse behaviours. The Government also committed to monitor closely how the implications of the new moratorium and restructuring provisions unfold in practice. I appreciate that the Act has only recently come into effect so there has been only a limited period to see how these provisions pan out in practice, but what arrangements have the Government put in place to monitor the implications of the moratorium and restructuring provisions, including the emergence of gaming and perverse behaviours for DB pension liabilities? How will they consult and report on the emergence of such behaviours? What plans do the Government have to lay regulations to allow them to act immediately when such instances occur?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for laying these amendments and for the excellent way in which she introduced them. I also support the amendments and believe that many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, are particularly relevant. It is clearly important that the Pension Protection Fund has some recognition—or as much as possible, if you like—in the new environment that has created the moratorium and various super-priorities. It is important that the Pension Protection Fund retains creditor rights where it can to avoid gaming of the fund, which otherwise could be overwhelmed with extra liabilities that are picked up by other pension schemes.
I agree with my noble friend that it is important to ensure that these regulations are able to act in the interests of the Pension Protection Fund and to balance that against the need to preserve functioning and ongoing sponsors during the current emergency. Can my noble friend help the Committee understand what powers this grants to the Pension Protection Fund? I recognise, and we discussed through the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, that there is a limit on the power of the Pension Protection Fund. I appreciate the Government’s amendments, which have introduced some representation, but, for example, if trustees, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, prefer to approve a high-risk restructuring strategy but the board of the Pension Protection Fund believes the risk is too high and would result in higher costs to it when the company fails—as the board believes would be most likely given the balance of risks that that restructuring would entail—would it have the power to override the trustees and to refuse to agree the proposed course of action and, ultimately, ensure that the company fails sooner rather than later, or would that not be within its powers under the new system?
Equally, if the management of the company wishes to try to sell assets that have already been pledged to the pension scheme and apply to a court to permit this—I understand the corporate insolvency Act permits the authorisation of the sale of such assets and the PPF must be informed or consulted—does the PPF have powers to protect itself against such a transaction on which the funding of that defined benefit scheme had previously been based? What representations might it be able to make in the court environment? Does it have the power to demand detailed information or to conduct its own investigations into the financial position of the company when it is aiming to restructure or undertake some asset sales? Does the Pension Protection Fund have the power to investigate the impact of any loans or other restructuring agreed in a moratorium that might be beneficial to favoured lenders or, ultimately, to the owners of the company, who might end up taking over a restructured operation, having jettisoned the pension fund to the detriment of the funding of the pension scheme when it goes into the PPF?
How do the Government plan to deal with schemes when banks or other lenders to a company during a moratorium attempt to leapfrog ahead of the pension scheme on insolvency, should that occur. At what stage does the Pension Protection Fund have any power to prevent this happening or to be able to intervene to represent its interests if it believes such loans are suspect or may be intended to game the PPF? I have given prior notice of these questions to my noble friend and was grateful to hear that Ministers have some ability to override some of the potential risks to pension scheme members and to other pension scheme members.
I know that it is important to make sure that the Pension Protection Fund—
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for providing a detailed explanation of this statutory instrument, the details of which I welcome because they will act as a measure of protection for members who work for companies in financial difficulty which face restructuring.
It is important to remember that companies and those who work for them are not working in normal times. There is the Covid pandemic and the uncertainty around a possible no-deal Brexit, the news last week of a run on the pound and the potential impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill on markets and businesses. References to the Chancellor’s potential raid on the coffers and reserves of businesses that pay for Covid financial measures can also precipitate further anxiety in the marketplace. Many companies have been the bulwark of our economy, as well as their employees, in both the public and the private sector.
As the Minister has explained, and was also explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, these regulations will enable the Pension Protection Fund to participate in key decisions in the process by enabling it to exercise creditor rights that would otherwise be exercisable by the scheme trustees or managers. It provides compensation for eligible pension scheme members whose employer has become insolvent and cannot meet the scheme’s liabilities. I understand that it will be funded mainly by a levy collected from pension schemes.
In considering the impact and legislative effect of these regulations under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, I have some questions for the Minister. Does she think that there will be sufficient money within those pension schemes to pay for a scheme’s liabilities? When the compensation is in payment, could it increase in such insolvency circumstances? If I am an employee, what happens if my scheme is potentially eligible for that but is facing all these difficulties as a result of insolvency? Will it be possible, in such circumstances, for the employee to contribute during the assessment period? Does the assessment period operate in such different circumstances? Is it possible to define the potential costs of such schemes? Will they reduce, bearing in mind that many people have left defined pension schemes? Will that categorisation apply in circumstances to do with restructuring and insolvency? What impact will that have on the Pension Protection Fund in its work with companies? Finally, what other benefits, including social security, are those pension scheme members eligible for if their employers have become insolvent and cannot meet the scheme’s liabilities other than those that may be provided for under the Pension Protection Fund?
Lord Flight (Con)
The Pension Protection Fund provides compensation and reconstruction arrangements for businesses in financial difficulties. The PPF can also provide compensation to members whose employers are in difficulties. These regulations allow the PPF to intervene to protect its interests where businesses are in a moratorium introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.
An urgent procedure is justified as there is an ongoing risk that a business could obtain a moratorium from its creditors or otherwise exclude the PPF. Under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006, the PPF has powers to exercise its right as a creditor during an assessment period following an insolvency event. These terms are defined by the Pensions Act 2004. The moratoriums and restructuring plan introduced by CIGA are, however, not qualifying insolvency events under the 2004 Act. As a result, the PPF lacks the necessary negotiating powers. The regulations are designed to remedy this so that the PPF can exercise creditor rights in a CIGA moratorium or restructuring plan.
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have both considered the new regulations and did not raise any concerns. The House of Commons debated the instrument on 7 September, when Guy Opperman said that the regulations were vital for the continuance of the new insolvency regime. I understand that the Labour Party supported the measures, and on 8 September the instrument was approved by the House of Commons without further debate.
The Government introduced the amendments to the PPF on 21 July; they are subject to the “made affirmative” procedure and came into force on 23 July. The amendments are concerned with bringing co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions into the scope of the regulations. The PPF regulations need amending so that the PPF can intervene in such organisations. The amending instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the House of Commons. The approval period ends on 1 October.
The widening of the scope for the PPF to be involved in sorting out insolvencies makes sense as it has the expertise so to do. I simply raise a modest flag about the cost of levies where there are already criticisms and it is not reasonable to impose charges of increasing size on pension funds that have no problems to solve.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. Baroness Wheatcroft? We will come back if we have to. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Flight. I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations so clearly. I support the regulations; there is clearly a necessity for them and I am pleased that they seem to command support from around the Committee.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced new and updated restructuring procedures—it was the first significant alteration of these since the 1980s. It included the new moratorium procedure and restructuring plan for companies, limited liability partnerships and charitable incorporated organisations. This procedure had been waiting in the wings for some time—it was nothing particularly to do with the Covid outbreak, although the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act was concerned with measures that were needed because of the outbreak. In consequence of this new process, these regulations are needed to make provision for the new regimes for pension funds and, specifically, the Pension Protection Fund so that it is able to exercise creditor rights.
I have several questions for the Minister. Is there a particular issue in relation to the time lag? The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a danger of something effectively falling through the cracks. There is reference to the need for the regulations to come into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent to minimise the gap in the application of the regime. Indeed, the Minister referred to the need to do so. What is the significance of this gap? Could the Minister clarify that? Does it apply to the other regulations the Minister referred to which are being delayed? I do not know how long the delay is and whether there is a greater danger to do with the gap referred to. Perhaps the Minister can also advise us about that.
My second point relates to publicity for these measures to ensure that pension funds are aware of these provisions and their impact. What is being done about publicity for the regulations?
I appreciate the reserved nature of these regulations, but given the interlink with other matters such as economic development, where there is a devolved dimension, can the Minister indicate how the department and the Government have engaged with the devolved Administrations to ensure that they are aware of the impact of these regulations and possible interlink with economic development?
Lastly, like the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I wonder whether the Minister could give us a general overview of—a sort of preliminary canter through—the impact of these new procedures. I appreciate that it is early days yet, but perhaps she can indicate the impact that the new procedures have had and whether there is any particular concern, over and above the concern that we have been addressing today, regarding the impact on pension funds. The noble Baroness may need to write to us on these points, and I will certainly understand if that is the case. With that, I conclude with my wholehearted support for these regulations.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced the regulations and for the time she made available to talk to those of us who were interested. She is always keen to be helpful and it is much appreciated.
Obviously, these regulations are needed, and as quickly as possible, but there are issues. I associate myself with the questions raised, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Altmann. All were interesting questions that deserve answer. I will then specifically query the possibility of companies going through a moratorium and restructuring being obliged to continue paying into deficit reduction funds. My understanding is that, during a moratorium or reconstruction, the obligation to pay staff remains and therefore the obligation to continue paying their pension contributions remains. However, there seems to be a question mark over payments into deficit reduction. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some clarity on that.
Secondly, can the Minister give clarity on the issue that was certainly highlighted during the Bernard Matthews fiasco a couple of years ago? During the course of a reconstruction, what must be termed quite risky—and extremely expensive—lending was taken on to preserve the company, and the result was certainly to disadvantage the pension fund. Will that still be possible under these regulations? In addition, when a company is going through a reconstruction, what is the significance of a floating charge to the pension fund? Does that floating charge continue to take priority?
More generally, since we are heading into a period where corporate collapses could, sadly, happen at far greater a rate than that to which we are used, as other noble Lords have pointed out, does the PPF have the manpower to monitor the situations in so many companies and to keep on top of the situation?
My final question is an overarching one about the ability and the independence of trustees. Much of the thinking behind these regulations seems to imply that, faced with choosing between the longest period of saving the company and looking after the interests of pensioners, the trustees, despite having a duty to pensioners, may well move towards safeguarding, as far as possible, the future of the company and its investors. That seems to highlight a potential failing in the system which has long been a matter of interest.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support this important measure, which gives powers to the Pension Protection Fund in the event of a company—specifically, a limited liability partnership or a charitable incorporated organisation—being in financial difficulty under the new moratorium provisions brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. I also thank the noble Baroness for her introduction and for her offers of information and the opportunities to ask questions before this debate.
As other noble Lords have said, these regulations give the board of the Pension Protection Fund rights normally exercised by pension schemes, trustees or managers. Under the new moratorium provision rather than the insolvency law, the Pension Protection Fund can end up picking up liabilities. It is therefore right that it should have a seat at the table in the same way it does in the case of insolvencies. As these regulations give the board of the Pension Protection Fund rights normally exercised by the scheme’s trustees or managers, when the trustees or managers lose their rights, the board is required to consult them as a result. That seems an important point.
The regulations enable these new rights in the context of limited liability partnerships and charitably incorporated organisations in particular. As other noble Lords have said, they seem timely in the event of the likely economic events in the wake of the pandemic. Other Members have raised a number of issues about that.
The sustainability of the Pension Protection Fund must cause anxiety in the light of potential large company failures and DB schemes in deficit. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, raised in his remarks the cost of levies. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised questions on a number of further risks, which I am sure the Minister will reply to, but I also particularly support her suggestion that the new arrangements should be monitored and reported. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised the specific powers of the PPF and whether it would have powers to override high-risk solutions to financial difficulties, particularly as regards safe assets and loans, which again the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned.
I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the protection of a scheme’s members in the event of restructuring and the reactions of markets to economic events, which we seem to be seeing much more of at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised the obligations of companies going through a moratorium, payment into deficit reduction, lending to preserve the company at the expense of the pension funds, and the PPF’s powers to do something about that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that we need to know about the time lag and the impact of the delay to these regulations, and of course, pension funds and members of pension funds need to be made aware of these new regulations, so I definitely support having more information about publicity, as well as an overview of the impact of the new arrangements, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, talked about.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions and make things a little clearer for us in this regard. I support the regulations and thank the Minister for her time in offering to provide information.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of these regulations and for her time in advance of today. I am grateful, too, to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I will be interested to hear answers to the many excellent questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and many other noble Lords.
These are tough times. The UK is in recession, the economy shrank by a fifth between April and June, employers are facing unprecedented challenges, unemployment is sky high and there are widespread predictions of large-scale job losses coming down the track as the furlough scheme is wound down. Given those conditions, Labour supported measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act to help struggling businesses stay open, but it is crucial that when companies face financial difficulty, interventions are made in a way which protects the pension schemes. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Drake and all who worked with her in pursuing amendments to the Act when it was a Bill to protect pension schemes and strengthen the position of the PPF. We are seeing the fruit of that work start to emerge here today.
I can confirm that we welcome the regulations. If a company ends up in a moratorium situation or facing a restructuring, it must be right for the PPF to be able to exercise the creditor rights of a trustee of a DB scheme. That is essential to protect the interests of the members of a scheme, but also the interests of all those who pay in to the PPF or may one day need to call on it. The most appropriate benchmark for assessing those measures is surely the powers that the PPF has now in relation to insolvency events.
My noble friend Lady Drake has previously given excellent examples such as the case of Arcadia of how the PPF can act to protect members and in doing so protect the lifeboat itself. Ministers were pressed to mirror what happens in an insolvency in the moratorium, with the triggering of an assessment and all that flows from that, but they chose not to do it, so the concerns articulated today by my noble friend Lady Drake, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and others deserve good answers.
I realise that the corporate governance Bill was handled by BEIS and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is a DWP Minister, but leaving aside the fact that she speaks for the Government, her department has responsibility for the PPF, so I should like to know how the DWP has looked at the implications of these regulations and the PPF in the round. How will Ministers give effect to the concession won by my noble friend Lady Drake and others in relation to monitoring the new processes and taking powers to make regulations to change the definitions of moratorium debt, and what role does her department have in the judgments made on that?
Secondly, what assessment has the DWP made of the potential risk to the PPF of the difference between its position in a moratorium versus an insolvency when it comes to voting rights and creditor standing? Thirdly, what assessment has the DWP made of the potential risk to the PPF, highlighted by my noble friend Lady Drake, of the new moratorium arrangements being gamed by lenders wanting super-priority status at the expense of the pension scheme? Crucially, given the state of the economy and the risks to so many employers, what assessment has the DWP made of the strength and stability of the PPF and its ability to deal with what is coming down the track?
This is a period of unprecedented challenge. It is right for the Government to do what they can to keep companies afloat and jobs alive, but the DWP also has a responsibility to ensure that the framework put in place to protect workers’ pensions does not let them down. If that is not done properly, it could jeopardise not only individual retirement plans but put the PPF lifeboat at risk, add extra burdens to levy payers and potentially risk the whole DWP strategy to drive up long-term savings.
We support the regulations, but the way they are done matters and the stakes are high. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for this helpful debate and their contributions. I hope that I have been able to establish why it was so important that we introduced these regulations.
The Pension Protection Fund creditors’ rights during a moratorium are intended to enable it to take part in certain decision-making processes as a creditor. For example, it enables the Pension Protection Fund to take part in a decision whether to grant consent to the extension of a moratorium in the relevant specified circumstances set out in the Act.
Where a restructuring plan is proposed, the rights given to the Pension Protection Fund are intended to enable it to influence the shape of any deal, and to seek additional security and guarantees to offset the risk that it takes on a scheme with an even larger deficit in the future.
The Covid-19 pandemic has meant that we have had to respond quickly to facilitate the survival of companies. That will offer employees the best chance of retaining their job. At the same time, we have strengthened the position of pension schemes to improve the chances of employees receiving their expected pension outcomes.
I turn to some of the questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Baronesses Lady Drake, Lady Altmann, Lady Ritchie, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Sherlock all mentioned gaming. During the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act through Parliament, the Government listened to concerns raised and amended the Bill to avoid lenders exercising their rights to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt, thereby potentially gaming the system through a moratorium. While the moratorium provisions do not prevent a financial services creditor exercising a termination or acceleration clause, nor do they remove the requirement that if the accelerated debt is not paid, the monitor must bring the moratorium to an end. But financial services’ pre-moratorium debts are excluded from super-priority where the debt has been accelerated during the moratorium period. The provisions are aimed at encouraging lending to companies in difficulty while also supporting the operation and stability of financial markets. The provisions disincentivise such creditors from seeking to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt solely to benefit from super-priority, should the company fail. There is also power to amend what does and does not receive super-priority, should market practice indicate that tightening the provision is necessary. It is too early to anticipate whether government action will be needed here. We think the provisions in place strike the right balance. The moratorium provisions will be reviewed within three years of enactment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked what powers the Pension Protection Fund will have in cases where a moratorium is in force. A company subject to a moratorium can sell charged property as if it were not subject to a charge only with the court’s permission. A court would not make such an order without the charge holder having had the opportunity to be heard on the application. It will be for the court to decide whether the Pension Protection Fund can intervene. A court will give permission for such a sale only if it will support the rescue of the company as a going concern, something that will be in all stakeholders’ interest, including the pension scheme. Additionally, the open market value of the property must be paid to the charge holder following the sale.
There are provisions to allow for the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator to be provided with information concerning a moratorium or a restructuring proposal, in terms of powers to obtain information. In the case of a moratorium, the board of the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator will be provided with certain notifications, including that a moratorium has come into force, in relevant specified circumstances. In the case of a restructuring, any notice or other document required to be sent to a creditor of the company must also be sent to the board of the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator in relevant specified circumstances. The Pension Protection Fund is then able to review this information including, where necessary, engaging external experts to assess the impact and to reach a view as to how to vote in any transaction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked if there was sufficient money in pension schemes. Unfortunately, not all pension schemes are well funded. Where a scheme is not well funded, it will go into the Pension Protection Fund. The Pension Protection Fund is confident that its long-term funding strategy and diverse investment approach positions it well to weather current market volatility and future challenges. The Pension Protection Fund’s latest modelling shows that it is well placed to achieve its self-sufficiency target, which is the ability to pay Pension Protection Fund compensation in full, with a 10% buffer. This means that Pension Protection Fund members and members of defined benefit schemes can be confident of the fund’s ability to continue to provide the compensation promised and to remain a robust safety net.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the point that the lag in the timing of bringing forward these regulations is problematic. We have expedited the making and laying of these regulations to minimise gaps in the legislation. After the moratorium restructuring plan, measures come into force. The “made affirmative” procedure enabled the regulations to come into force soon after they were laid. We are not currently aware of any moratorium in force or restructuring plan proposed in relation to an employer pension scheme eligible for the Pension Protection Fund.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the issue of the impact so far. As I said, we are not aware of any moratorium or restructuring plan in place, but we will monitor the situation closely.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft asked about reduction contributions: are deficit reduction contributions enforceable during a moratorium? As employees’ wages or salary must be paid, whether or not they fall due before or during the moratorium, the term “wages or salary” also includes a contribution to an occupational pension scheme. Payments made under deficit repair contributions are not enforceable. This is the debt for which the Pension Protection Fund is acting as a creditor.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft also raised the Bernard Matthews case. Pre-pack sales are a useful tool for rescuing businesses, saving jobs and maximising funds available to creditors. If I may, I shall write further to her on that issue.
My noble friend also raised the issue of the Pension Protection Fund’s resources to intervene in moratoriums. The Pension Protection Fund has an in-house restructuring and insolvency team but also the ability to call on third-party advisers to support its work. The Pension Protection Fund keeps its level of resourcing under review but at present it is confident that it can engage in moratoriums and restructuring plans as necessary.
A number of noble Lords raised questions about monitoring as things develop. We have regular governance meetings with the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator as the sponsoring department. We will therefore be able to monitor developments in the light of operational experience.
Many noble Lords asked questions that I will not have time to respond to in summing up, but I confirm to all noble Lords that we will review Hansard and make a point of writing to noble Lords with the answers to their questions.
To conclude, we will keep these measures under review. My department and the Pension Protection Fund have regular meetings to review its performance. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I remind 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 there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The time limit for debate on the following order is one hour.
Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the draft order was laid before the House on 14 July 2020 under the affirmative procedure. It confers immunities, privileges, reliefs and exemptions on this new intergovernmental organisation, the Square Kilometre Array Observatory, or SKAO, under the International Organisations Act 1968. If Parliament agrees, it would complete the UK’s ratification of the convention which was signed in March 2019 and laid in Parliament in July of that year under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Before I go into the detail of the order, I want to set the subject in context by saying a few words about the Square Kilometre Array project that the SKAO is being established to deliver and operate. The Square Kilometre Array, or SKA, is an international mega-science project to build the world’s largest and most sensitive radio telescope. It is a truly global effort involving 11 member countries and participation of around 100 organisations across a total of 20 countries. The SKA is one of the most ambitious international science projects of the 21st century.
Co-located in South Africa and Western Australia, the SKA will use hundreds of dishes and thousands of antennas connected by optical fibre to monitor the sky in unprecedented detail. Many times faster and significantly more sensitive than any current radio telescope, and of a scale never seen before, it will enable scientists to test some of the key questions in physics and about the nature of the universe. For example, was Einstein right about gravity? What is dark energy and why is it so important in our universe? And where did magnetism come from?
The SKA will deliver significant technological advances in data processing and opportunities for business innovation. It will help to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers.
The SKAO will be the intergovernmental organisation building and managing the SKA. Based in the UK at the Jodrell Bank Observatory, it will manage the construction, operation and data processing of the telescopes. The SKA is a flagship project for the UK Government and underlines our commitment to worldwide partnerships as part of our modern industrial strategy ambition to make sure that the UK remains a global leader in science, research and innovation.
The UK Government have already committed £100 million to the construction of the SKA—we are one of the largest contributors—and a further £85 million for running costs over a 10-year period to 2026-27. This investment gives the UK a leading role in the project during the construction and operation phases. The investment and the UK’s hosting of this new intergovernmental organisation at its Jodrell Bank HQ are a demonstration of our world-leading position and influence in radio astronomy and wider scientific collaboration and exploration.
Let me now turn to the details of the order. As I have mentioned, the convention was formally laid in Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in July last year and was completed in October. The order is part of the UK’s ratification and provides the privileges and immunities to enable the SKAO to function as an intergovernmental organisation in the United Kingdom. It is standard practice for intergovernmental organisations and their staff to be accorded privileges and immunities by the member states.
I reassure noble Lords that the privileges and immunities afforded to officers of the SKAO in the UK are limited to those required for them to conduct their official activities and are not for their personal benefit. They are in line with those offered to officers of other intergovernmental organisations of which the UK is a member. These include limited immunity from jurisdiction and inviolability for its officers and employees, including immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts, and tax exemption. They do not include immunity from UK road traffic law. The SKAO convention also requires that the SKAO has legal capacity so that it can enter into contracts and take such other action as may be necessary or useful for its purposes and activities.
The order applies to the whole of the UK. However, some provisions of the instrument do not extend to, or apply in, Scotland. A separate Scottish Order in Council has been prepared to deal with these provisions within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. This was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 10 August.
The order confers on the new SKAO and its staff only those privileges and immunities necessary for the organisation to function effectively and conduct its official activities. The order will enable the UK to complete its ratification of the SKAO convention and make the global SKA project a reality. Completing ratification of the SKAO convention will bring us closer to answering some of the most important questions in advancing our understanding of the universe.
The SKA will provide huge opportunities for technological advances and innovation, notably in the field of big data processing and in areas where UK industry and the research establishment are well poised to benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister’s statement should surely be welcomed and uncontroversial. I have no specific involvement to declare, but as Astronomer Royal I am probably one of the few Members of this House familiar with the SKA. I will therefore supplement what the Minister said by outlining for a few minutes the project’s international significance, why the UK’s central role is especially welcome and why this decision has broader long-term benefits extending beyond the science itself.
Astronomy is the grandest environmental science. We are trying to discover the whole “zoo” of objects the cosmos contains—galaxies, stars, planets, black holes, et cetera. Just as Darwin showed how we and our biosphere evolved from the first life on the young earth about 4 billion years ago, we are trying to go back further and trace how the solar system and all the atoms in it emerged from some mysterious beginning nearly 14 billion years ago.
We can also learn new basic physics by observing phenomena where nature has, as it were, created conditions and done experiments we could never simulate in the lab. Within a decade, incidentally, we can observe planets around other stars to check whether they might harbour life. This subject has become a “big science” advanced by international consortia—indeed, in optical astronomy the European Southern Observatory, to which we in the UK belong, has a world lead. It has the biggest and best optical telescope currently and the one now being built will also be a world-beater.
Moreover, other kinds of radiation, not just optical but radio waves, reveal just as much as visible light. Indeed, much of the gas in the universe is hydrogen and radiates only in the radio band. Ever since the 1950s, the UK has been an international leader in radio astronomy, not least because radio waves are not stopped by clouds and rain.
However, there is a fundamental constraint. To get a sharp image of the radio sky would require a dish far bigger than those at Jodrell Bank and elsewhere—literally miles across—which is obviously out of the question. But there is another way to get sharp images. The radiation gathered from an array of separate dishes can be combined to create a map of the radio sky as sharp as a single radio dish the size of the earth.
The SKA exploits this amazing technique, which incidentally was first developed by Martin Ryle in Cambridge in the 1960s. It will comprise hundreds of dishes, with a total surface area of a square kilometre—hence its name—but these dishes will be spread over a large geographical region. Perhaps the biggest challenge, to which the Minister alluded, is the huge computer power needed to combine and process the data flow from all the dishes in the array.
Such an array cannot be built in Britain. It needs large, open and sparsely populated areas. After years of international discussion, two optimal sites were found in the southern hemisphere which have scientific and geopolitical advantages. Half the array will be concentrated in remote pastoral areas of Western Australia, though some outlying dishes in that array will spread right across the continent.
The other half will be in South Africa, centred in a region of the Northern Cape known as the Karoo. Nearly 200 dishes will be concentrated in a region 100 miles across, but some outliers will spread further away into eight other African countries: Ghana, Zambia, Madagascar, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Mauritius and Mozambique. South Africa is already a major player in astronomy, having prioritised it for decades. To quote the relevant South African Minister:
“We are determined to ensure the success of what will be the first ever large global research infrastructure hosted in Africa”.
Participation in the SKA project has significantly strengthened South Africa’s data science capabilities, enabling it to close the gap with developed economies.
So much for the background. The SKA hardware is concentrated in two southern countries, but 15 or more nations are contributing, so it needs a governance structure established through international treaties similar to those governing two other sciences that require costly international facilities and multinational partnerships: CERN, the particle accelerator in Geneva, and the European Space Agency. I should add that the SKA is about 10 times cheaper than CERN.
The global headquarters will be the legal entity responsible for constructing and operating the telescopes in the southern hemisphere. The convention was signed, as the Minister said, in 2019 by Australia, China, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa and the UK. Other member nations plan to join and contribute financially and via their expertise.
It is fitting that the world’s future largest radio telescope, the SKA, will have its headquarters at Jodrell Bank—a site recently granted UNESCO world heritage status to mark its pioneering contributions to radio astronomy and the iconic telescope, now called the Lovell Telescope, which was once the world’s largest single dish in radio astronomy. Lovell’s great telescope, incidentally, was commissioned in the 1950s. It has had several updates and is now more than 60 years old, but it is still probing cosmic objects whose very existence was unknown when it was built and, by looking at pairs of neutron stars, conducting some of the most precise tests of fundamental physics and Einstein’s theory of gravity.
Likewise, there is every hope that the SKA will, via periodic upgrades which will deploy computational power beyond today’s conceptual horizon, spearhead cosmic exploration throughout much of the 21st century. It is a benign project that will have a special role in stimulating IT and data-handling in Africa and in the other member countries. It will benefit all participating states, and their number is likely to grow. It is therefore especially welcome for the UK to have a pivotal role, which will be a technological boost to us in this country as well as a boost to our international collaboration. We should surely welcome this decision today.
Lord Fox (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees, the one person in the Room who is qualified to tell us about this project. We welcome this statutory instrument, and I have to say that it is a slightly easier one than the previous instrument brought forward by the Minister to redefine the metre. However, thanks to his good work, at least we now have an exact measurement for the area covered by the dishes.
I am a little worried about BEIS letting itself loose on dark energy, given that it has still not mastered a plan for nuclear power, but hopefully we shall be safe. I am excited by the possibility of this powerful telescope. It may not reveal the location of any significant new trade deals to replace our relationship with the European Union, but it will contribute massively to our understanding of the origins of the universe, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has set out so elegantly.
It is in that latter regard that this project is of huge importance. The fact that the HQ is in the UK should be a source of immense pride, as the Minister set out. It is symbolic of the research reputation which has been built up in this country, particularly in this field, and the quality of our science, both historically and currently. We should be proud that Jodrell Bank was chosen to be the HQ and we should congratulate everyone who helped to make that happen. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, was being overly modest when he discounted himself in that regard.
This SI does not mention funding and that is not its purpose. However, I am glad that the Minister did bring that issue in. These are troubled times and this is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure the people who are connected with the project that the Government remain committed. In spite of the obvious economic problems created by Covid and in spite of the future economic problems that will emerge at the end of the transition period, the Minister mentioned £85 million, so I assume that he is confirming that that money will continue to go the SKA. Can he confirm that that is the contribution the Government are making to take us through the completion of phase 1? This is a 50-year project and even I would not expect the Minister to commit funds for the next 50 years. I assume that the money mentioned by the Minister will take us to the end of phase 1, which I think is due to complete in 2023; that is within the remit of this Parliament.
There is some more international red tape. As the Minister said, the Netherlands and South Africa have ratified, and as I understand it, the process we are going through here will mean that the United Kingdom will have ratified. That leaves Australia which has yet to ratify. When do the Government expect Australia to ratify its involvement?
The Explanatory Notes say that this instrument is unlikely to be controversial, and I agree, along with the noble Lord, Lord Rees. However, the notes also say that the treaty is unlikely to attract media attention. They say:
“Little public or media interest is envisaged”.
Why on earth not? I ask the Minister to spark some imagination into his Government and his department. This is science that will explore the universe. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned, alongside the European Southern Observatory, it is one of only two intergovernmental organisations that I am aware of which are doing this sort of thing. This is the kind of science that lights the fire in people. It gets them enthusiastic about science, technology, engineering and even about mathematics. The SKA understands this. On its website are some lovely fun things for children and even for grown-ups to do.
This is science that will explore the universe, so ratifying the treaty is an opportunity. BEIS, the Department for Education and other government departments should plan a campaign around this project that will encourage the future technologists of this country. Can the Minister please promise to spark his department into some life? Far from dismissing this as a media non-event, he and his colleagues should be shouting about it from the rooftops. That we are leading it is a great success. It is a fantastic project that will shed light on to so many different things. It is typical of big science in that it inspires ideas and will deliver umpteen practical benefits. It is a truly international effort to boost science and it will affect the whole world’s understanding of itself.
Of course, it means that people from many different countries must come together. In this regard, can the Minister tell the House how many non-UK scientists are expected to be based in the UK HQ? Perhaps, without sounding too cheap, how will they and their families be affected by the new Immigration Rules being brought in by Her Majesty’s Government? Does this statutory instrument, which establishes immunities and privileges that the Minister started to set out, include the immigration of individuals and their families? If so, I would welcome that.
We on these Benches support this statutory instrument. It will help to deliver a great project and, more than that, in today’s febrile atmosphere of nationalism and border closures, it is a splendid internationalist project; it is a beacon. It is the opposite of what is being discussed today in the other place. Rather than planning on how the UK might break international law, this legislation enables the country to honour its obligations. In this respect, too, it has full Liberal Democrat support.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this historic discussion about big science, as the Astronomer Royal put it—indeed, very big science. I echo some of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is an honour to be present and a part of this, and it is humbling to hear about all the extraordinary things that are going on in this area of science. It is very good news indeed that the UK is playing its part and I congratulate the Government on that.
I have little to add to the debate because it is uncontroversial. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it would be nice to put a little of the oxygen of publicity behind it, but I understand the difficulties that that may pose. It is nevertheless a good story and good stories deserve their space. I shall finish with a few detailed questions.
I want to push a little further on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about this being a first phase project and that there will be a second phase which will mark
“a significant increase in capabilities.”
I presume that that is code for quite a lot of money. The Astronomer Royal made the point that we are talking about new generation computing and hardware that may still not yet have passed the provability test. The expectation is that a substantial sum of money will be required to do that. I want just to check that my reading of the notes is correct. I do not think that the Minister is in a position to give us details, but perhaps he will confirm, even with a nod, that this is where we are going. We should welcome that because if we are going to enter this, let us go in fully and with commitment, and make sure that we are there not only at the beginning but also at the end of the project to share in the benefits that will be brought forward.
That leads me on to the slightly wider question of whether there is a long-term plan for the SKA. Presumably since it is exploring what is by definition unknown, we are not able to plan right through, but it would be useful to have a reassurance from the Minister that we are talking about a long-term commitment and that this will not be resolved in a few days, a few years, or even a few Parliaments. We need to be sure that we will remain a part of this.
Finally, just to pick up the point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions other projects of which the UK is now part. I was very glad to hear about them. They had escaped my attention, but it is good to know about them. There is talk about £374 million having already been promised and committed to the European Space Agency for projects undefined. I am not looking for detail, but when he responds perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is not money that is being imagined but is definitely in the budget and will be paid, and that we are talking about long-term engagement with the EU space agency.
There is also mention of a lunar gateway project and other projects in the pipeline. Although I think it is funded differently, the Copernicus Earth Observatory Programme gets a mention. Again, perhaps the Minister could mention anything that comes out that in terms of what funding streams are identified. This is not critical. It is just along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: the more we know about this, the easier it is to celebrate it.
We support this. We think it is a great project and are delighted to see it well on its way.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I was particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, who is a renowned expert, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, in this subject. I understand that this is the noble Lord’s 25th anniversary as the Astronomer Royal, and I am sure that the whole Committee will want to offer him our warmest congratulations.
This order and the separate Scottish order are the final legislative steps necessary for the UK to ratify the SKAO convention. Once approved by both Parliaments and the Privy Council, we can ratify the convention. This order confers privileges and immunities on the Square Kilometre Array Observatory only as far as is necessary for it to function as an intergovernmental organisation in the United Kingdom. As required by the SKAO convention, the order also confers legal capacity on the organisation so that it can enter into contracts and take such other action as may be necessary or useful for its purpose and activities. The privileges and immunities of the SKAO will be equivalent to those of other intergovernmental organisations, such as the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva and the European Southern Observatory. Indeed, the legal status and structure of CERN was used as a model for SKAO.
Turning now to the specific points raised in the debate, as I said earlier, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in particular, for his support and for giving us his insight into the SKA project, outlining the many scientific opportunities it will lead to. In particular the noble Lord mentioned the European Southern Observatory, which is an important international facility of which the UK has been the leading member since 2002 and which has substantially supported our astronomical leadership. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his support for the SKA project. I reassure him that BEIS, despite the expertise of its excellent officials, is not being let loose on the subject of dark energy. We are very content to leave that to the astronomers and the experts of the SKA.
The noble Lord asked about ratification. We expect Australia to ratify this year. I can confirm that the expenditure we have committed is for phase 1 of the project. I agree that the SKA should be spoken of with high regard as a great opportunity for the UK and that we should take it as an opportunity to promote our scientific leadership. This order enables non-UK national members of staff, including scientists, to work in the UK, and we expect there to be more than 50 non-UK national members of staff initially, rising to more than 100 later.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the second phase of the project. The project is scalable and we will build on phase 1. Clearly the funding agreement for that is some way off, but successful completion of phase 1 will form a solid basis for it. This is a very narrow piece of legislation focused on the privileges and immunities of the SKAO and is not related to our commitment to the European Space Agency.
I shall give noble Lords a bit more detail on the finances. In March 2014, the UK Government committed to investing £100 million in the construction of the SKA, which was around 16% of the total construction cost. This was agreed as part of the process of bringing the headquarters to the United Kingdom. A new £16.5 million building has been constructed at Jodrell Bank to house the SKA HQ, with funding from BEIS of £9.8 million, the Science and Technological Facilities Council, the University of Manchester, which committed £5.7 million, and Cheshire East Council, which contributed £1 million. As shown by the widespread support for this project, it is enormously exciting for the UK, and our astronomy community will be a key partner in this global project.
We remain committed to strengthening our position as a world leader in astronomy and space exploration. The order takes us one step closer to bringing the SKAO into operation. As one of the host countries, this Government remain committed to bringing it into being as soon as possible. It will become fully operational when the convention enters into force. As one of the host countries, it is important that the United Kingdom ratifies at the earliest opportunity so that the start of construction of the telescope in 2021 is not delayed. The convention will come into force 30 days after all three host countries—the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia—plus two further members have ratified it. We expect this to occur by November 2020. This will retain international member confidence in the project and encourage other countries to join. UK scientists and engineers have been involved in the SKA from the project’s inception in the early 1990s.
By hosting this intergovernmental organisation in the UK, we will continue to play a leading role in bringing this project to fruition and guiding it through the construction and operation phases. The UK’s participation reinforces our position in international astronomy and maintains and strengthens relationships with researchers across the globe. I commend this order to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I remind 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 there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Professional Qualifications and Services (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Professional Qualifications and Services (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 6 July 2020, be approved. I will give a brief overview of the rationale behind these regulations, which relate to the recognition of professional qualifications and the provision of services. They form part of the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have signed agreements with the EU, the three EEA EFTA states and Switzerland, which contain arrangements regarding the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The agreements include provisions that protect the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals living and frontier-working in the UK, and vice versa. These regulations will give effect to certain provisions in the agreements relating to the recognition of the professional qualifications—or RPQ as I will now refer to it—of this group of EEA and Swiss nationals.
By doing so, the regulations will ensure that the decisions made by UK regulators to recognise the professional qualifications of EEA and Swiss nationals before the end of the transition period will be grandfathered after the period ends. These individuals will be able to continue to practise their profession in the UK. The regulations also make various changes to the domestic frameworks for RPQ and services, including in respect of regulations made in anticipation of exit, which will ensure that they function effectively after the transition period. Professionals from the EU make a significant contribution to the public and private sectors in the UK. Between 2007 and 2016, the UK gave 148,000 recognition decisions to EU professionals.
I remind noble Lords of the background to RPQ. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications system is derived from EU law. It allows UK professionals to get their qualifications recognised in the EEA and Switzerland—and vice versa—with minimal barriers. Across the whole of the EEA and Switzerland, there are approximately 570 different professions under this system. After the transition period, the EU system will cease to apply to the UK. Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, the Government made various RPQ EU exit regulations to amend the domestic law that implements the current EU system for RPQ in order to fix deficiencies caused by exit.
The existing EU exit regulations include provisions which protect recognition decisions already made; allow applications for recognition submitted before exit day to be concluded after it; allow providers of temporary and occasional services one year from exit in which to complete their service provision; and retain aspects of the recognition system to provide a route for certain EEA and Swiss qualification holders to apply for recognition of their qualifications after exit day.
I should say that this retention of part of the existing recognition system is not covered by the agreements with the EU, EEA or Switzerland, or these new regulations. However, it forms part of the Government’s plan to make sure that the UK is prepared to leave the single market. The Government have decided that this system should remain in place temporarily after the transition period in the event that there are no satisfactory arrangements from the EU free trade agreement negotiations.
I will briefly explain how these new regulations will implement the RPQ provisions of the agreements, to which I referred earlier. The agreements contain similar, but slightly different, provisions to those contained in the existing RPQ EU exit legislation. Therefore, these new regulations will make amendments to EU exit regulations laid by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to give full effect to the RPQ terms of the agreements. The reason for this is that the agreements were finalised after the existing EU exit legislation was passed.
The provisions in these regulations relating to the agreements will protect recognition decisions made before the end of the transition period; allow applications for recognition submitted before the end of the transition period to be concluded; ensure that UK regulators co-operate with their EEA and Swiss counterparts to facilitate the completion of applications ongoing at the end of the transition period; and ensure that professionals whose professional qualifications are recognised are treated on the same basis as UK nationals.
In respect only of Switzerland, these regulations give effect to provisions in the Swiss agreement that provide for a longer transition period for certain individuals. In particular, they will allow a further four-year period for certain Swiss nationals to apply for recognition under current EU rules and allow certain Swiss service providers to continue to provide their services in accordance with their contract for up to five years after the end of the transition period.
The RPQ provisions of the agreements will be reciprocated by EU member states, the EEA EFTA states, and Switzerland respectively. I remind noble Lords that these regulations do not cover certain legal or healthcare professions, which are being covered in separate statutory instruments by the relevant departments.
To ensure that the frameworks for RPQ and services will function as intended after the transition period, these regulations will also make various other changes, which can be separated into four categories. First, retained treaty rights in respect of RPQ will be disapplied. These are overarching rights derived from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EEA agreement in respect of free movement of workers, and retained treaty rights for RPQ derived from the Swiss free movement of persons agreements. After the transition period, the default position is that these rights will become retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. These regulations disapply these treaty rights, in so far as they relate to RPQ, to ensure legal clarity about the post-transition period system for recognition of EEA and Swiss qualifications.
Secondly, a retained delegated regulation on ski instructor qualifications and two delegated decisions—which update annexes to the EU directive on RPQ—will have no practical effect after the transition period. These regulations will therefore revoke them to tidy up the statute book.
Thirdly, these regulations will make minor corrections to RPQ EU exit regulations and technical amendments which change references to “exit day” to “IP completion day” in the existing RPQ and services EU exit regulations. This will be done so that the regulations will function effectively after the end of the transition period.
Lastly, consequential amendments and a minor correction to a transposition error will be made to the 2015 EU RPQ regulations.
I should point out at this stage that UK regulators have been consulted on an informal basis throughout the process of developing RPQ EU exit legislation and these regulations.
To conclude, I reiterate that these regulations are vital to the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It is imperative that they are made so that professionals and businesses are equipped to be ready for the end of the transition period. I commend these regulations to the Committee and look forward to hearing noble Lords’ views.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall not detain the Grand Committee or the Minister very long. My contribution is more to probe and to query than to add anything new. I understand entirely the need for these regulations and the issue in respect of rights that were incorporated in EU legislation. I also understand the grandfathering process so that people retain their rights in respect of the qualifications they have obtained. Under the transitional provisions, in some cases that will be for one year, while in the case of Swiss nationals it will be for four or five years.
I am afraid that over the weekend I did not have the resources that I used to have or the technical ability online to be able to get to grips with what would happen after the varying transition periods were completed; in other words, whether the reciprocation agreed in implementing the grandfathered rights would continue, with mutual recognition of existing qualifications, including in respect of the provisions dealing which medical professional qualifications, two of which are to be disapplied because they are felt not to be relevant. I want to query with the Minister why they are not relevant any more. I shall not go into skiing, because I am sure other people will want to talk about reciprocal recognition there. As I am not foolish enough to go skiing at my age, it will not apply to me, but I am at a loss to see where we will be after a further, extended transition period following the end of this year and how it will operate for those who gain their qualifications after that period has finished. If that does not make sense, neither do the regulations read by an intelligent human being who does not have access, in terms of the regulations, to a range of European languages, and that includes me.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for presenting the regulations to the Grand Committee. In so far as they go, I welcome them. It is good that we are holding out the hand of friendship and continuity to those with professional qualifications from the countries concerned to allow them to continue to live and work in the United Kingdom.
My question is a simple one and concerns what will happen in the event of no deal on 1 January to those with professional qualifications who currently enjoy mutual recognition in other member states and across the EEA and Switzerland. Might we have an extremely messy situation on 1 January in respect of current practitioners? They could be in some of the professions that my noble friend the Minister described; they could be lawyers, architects, dentists, doctors—the list goes on.
I declare a personal interest—I have followed this matter for some time, as my noble friend will be aware—in that I was able to avail myself of mutual recognition as a practising EU lawyer. I worked in two firms in Brussels for a period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. One has only to look at the difficulty experienced in the different professions and their branches and at how many years it took in some cases to reach the mutual recognition from which all of us have benefited in the EU, the EEA and Switzerland. In the case of architects, the directive took 21 years to agree, yet when we look at the stellar contribution made across these countries by those such as the Rogers design team, we realise that it was worth the difficulty and the time in reaching agreement.
In the event that we do not have a deal on 1 January and the position is unclear, what will the position be for those from the United Kingdom who wish to practise their profession in these countries? I would be grateful for a reply from my noble friend.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I now call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Loomba. Lord Loomba? We will perhaps come back to the noble Lord; we are having some technical difficulties. I call the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations states at paragraph 2.9:
“This instrument is also concerned with the Delegated Regulation which establishes a common training test for ski instructors”
and then references footnote 9. Before I go into the detail of that, taken overall, as my noble friend the Minister stated, this instrument seeks to introduce into domestic law the recognition of professional qualifications, or RPQs, in the EU agreement and seeks reciprocity where it is to the benefit of both parties. The Swiss citizens’ rights agreement is a clear example of this. This instrument specifically addresses key and important questions relating to the ongoing status of ski instructors living and working in Switzerland and in wider European countries such as Spain and Andorra in the Pyrenees, as well as Alpine countries. I am unclear why the Government are not seeking to protect employment opportunities for ski instructors, given that we are a major financial contributor to the success of this sector in the Alps and the Pyrenees.
A key issue post Brexit which is worrying the ski industry is how instructors will live and work in Europe. Additionally, the industry will need to re-evaluate resourcing requirements for chalet workers, support staff, ski instructors and mountaineer support teams. We hope that change after the transition period will be handled as an administrative step which holidaymakers or Alpine workers will need to take prior to travel. However, this remains unclear and the regulations being considered today provide an opportunity to ensure that we are completely in sync with the EU on ski instructors—an objective pursued by the British Association of Snowsport Instructors, or BASI.
As I understand the position, when the right to work in the EU is rescinded, instructors will need to apply for a work visa. While it should be recognised that this is already commonplace for British instructors wishing to work in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, et cetera—though age and time restrictions apply—it is unclear what arrangements the British Government have reached in negotiation given the CTT agreement, which I hope stays in place and can be reciprocally agreed as ongoing practice between the EU and the UK.
With Switzerland being outside the EU, we have some knowledge of working across EU zone borders. Non-Swiss instructors have to apply for work permits in Switzerland as they do not have an automatic right to work there. In 2000, a common set of criteria was agreed for training and performance standards for ski instructors. This was not an EU agreement, meaning that originally it should have stood for British nationals post the transition period, but since then it has been adopted by the EU delegated regulation 2019/607.
A few years ago, the British Association of Snowsport Instructors and the International Ski Instructors Association negotiated an agreement with European Alpine nations. The group, which found considerable common ground, consisted of France, Austria, Italy and the UK. The British top qualification—level 4 ISTD—was recognised as equal to that of Austria, France and Italy. BASI has representation on the board of Interski International, the snow sports umbrella organisation, which has three specialised associations: the ISIA, the IVSI and the IVSS. Can my noble friend confirm that the United Kingdom, represented by BASI, will continue to be included in the EU Commission delegated Act, translated into our legislation, for ski instructors and the associated common training test—CTT—agreement, which I have mentioned, or is the status to be grandfathered under our legislation or removed?
Could my noble friend confirm that the top British qualification will continue to be recognised in Europe post the transition period? BASI is hopeful that, as long as it continues to comply with the rules and processes as they currently stand, there will be no change to the recognition of qualifications. However, would I be right in interpreting the agreement reached with the EU on this subject as effectively removing us from a common CTT agreement and therefore French ski schools, for example, would be able to reject British ski instructors after the transition period on grounds wholly unconnected with whether they have passed the common training test?
BASI decided to align its qualifications with the Scottish credit qualification framework several years ago, which in turn aligns with the European qualification framework. Not only did this give our European counterparts an alternative tool which they can use to recognise the level of our qualifications but it enabled our members to gain recognition for the time and effort they have put into their snow sports career if they choose to apply for jobs in completely different sectors.
There is a clear need for government to prioritise doing what they can to promote and protect the rights of UK citizens working in the mountains of Europe. Over the years, many UK workers have come up against major resort-based difficulties, being in areas where locally elected mayors turn a blind eye towards fierce national protection of work opportunities for local ski instructors despite, as I have mentioned, the huge investment made by the UK-based ski tourist industry. Would my noble friend recommend that instructors who are accepted to work in the EU ski resorts register to work in the countries that they intend to work in, anticipating that new working rights arrangements post Brexit may take some time?
In summary, the proposal in this instrument is to revoke the retained delegation regulation on ski instructors on the grounds that my noble friend said in her opening remarks: that they will have “no practical effect” in the UK after the transition period and therefore should be revoked. Does this mean that the common training test will no longer be recognised in Europe for British instructors or, indeed, in Scotland for European instructors? If not, what support and protection will British ski instructors have after 31 December?
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
I am very sorry that my microphone was not on. This legislation is of great importance alongside measures such as the immigration Bill, which is vital to the smooth running of our country as we move to a new way of co-operating, on a new footing, with the EU and associated countries. Mutual recognition of qualifications goes to the heart of sustaining our ability to accept much-needed talent and skills into our country. It is crucial that we get it right as it will affect the functioning of the economy. More importantly, it affects peoples’ lives and livelihoods—their ability to use their skills and talents to put food on the table.
This legislation has some flaws, not least that as a statutory instrument it will become law without the proper scrutiny, evaluation and debate that our place is lauded for. That allows its passage unhindered and, in doing so, risks missing some of the detailed assessment necessary to ensure good law on working practices that is fit for purpose. For citizens to easily understand it and navigate it in their search for work, and for businesses to be able to employ staff without unnecessary hurdles or red tape hampering productivity, any legislation requires clarity accompanied by good guidance. Businesses need good, clear, effective measures in place to be able to operate effectively in what is a very competitive market at the best of times. Now, with the pandemic, businesses face even greater pressure and uncertainty. Here, I declare an interest as set out in the register as the owner of a business. I understand the difficulties many businesses face.
In understanding the complexity of this legislation, take for example, the original EU directive on which existing recognition of mutuality is based. This will cease to apply to the UK once the transition period ends. This means that some parts of the directive will be inoperable as a consequence of exit and other parts will not be appropriate to retain given they are based on reciprocal arrangements with the EU, the EEA, EFTA states and Switzerland which will no longer exist.
To go some way to resolving this issue, as we have heard, in 2018 and 2019 the Government already made several recognitions of professional qualifications in EU exit instruments. The Government have since made agreements with the EU, EEA, EFTA states and Switzerland. These include provisions on RPQ that are similar to, but slightly different from, existing provisions in RPQ EU exit legislation. These provisions require this statutory instrument to give effect to these areas. This demonstrates how much legislation will need to be navigated for businesses and individuals to understand and comply with.
Further, the statutory instrument does not require a review because its impact is deemed to be worth less than £5 million on business. It states that it does not affect small businesses and that guidance will be issued. I am not sure how something like this would not affect many small businesses, often without the wherewithal to navigate the myriad provisions, and at present, it would appear that the guidance is not available. It is vital that we get this right. Business, research and educational relationships that depend on it will be affected far into the future, and a clean sweep, with a completely new Act, would have been a better option.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has hit the nail on the head with her questions. She asked them in a very unaggressive fashion and said that what is now being faced by many businesses is the fact that we will leave the EU without a deal. What I really want to know is what will happen to mutual recognition if we leave without a deal. Mutual recognition is vitally important in a world where people go all over the place to get their qualifications and expect to be able to use them across a wide area. If the UK exits from that world and does not mutually recognise qualifications, that will be an absolute disaster.
I was going to comment on the huge amount of legal work that has gone into drafting this statutory instrument. I have read it carefully all the way through, but it is very difficult to read. Yet the Government are spending time on this when whole sectors of industry, such as financial services, have practitioners who are not qualified swindling the population out of a lot of money. I wish that the Government had attended to this instead.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of the instrument. I understand a little more about it now than I did the first time I read through it, but I am rather like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who explained in his rather self-deprecating way that he was confused until the end. The SI itself is clear, but the Explanatory Memorandum has left us all a bit flabbergasted and confused, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, just said. However, we must make progress on it because, as the Minister has said, it is an important document and vital to preparations for the post-transition period. However, I put it to her that it raises issues which are much more important for the longer term, which is what much of the debate has been about.
Before going on to that, I think we owe a vote of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his obviously hard research into the situation affecting ski instructors, which we all noted and all felt a little tentative about raising. I think he has made the argument extremely well so I am going to make a slightly separate point that here is a group for whom special arrangements had to be made and they appear to have been carved out randomly on the basis that it did not seem to matter when in fact it does. In particular, in Scotland, where I come from, there is a well-established tradition and good training is provided for people who work in difficult and often dangerous circumstances in the high mountains. How extraordinary that they are going to be cut out without much thought in terms of mutual recognition. Will the Minister explain how and on what basis this was discussed with the Scottish Government, who presumably have very strong views on this? I will be interested to know how their response was registered.
As other noble Lords have picked up, the key question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about what happens to mutual recognition immediately afterwards—it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. It was certainly part of the earlier discussions and debates. Those of us who follow this closely will have read the exchange of correspondence between the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the department on this in which the committee raised a question about how all this sits in the wider picture, which is what is behind a number of our comments. The response is rather confusing because it first tries to narrow it down to being a technical SI, which indeed it is at heart, tidying up a few things that need to be resolved, but it also says in response to a question about whether this issue is going to be a continuing discussion and debate that arrangements on the future recognition of professional qualifications after the transition period are being discussed as part of the EU-UK comprehensive free trade agreement and that the Government intend to include appropriate non-discrimination and equal treatment provisions in the FTA.
When one looks at it, the draft paragraphs contain a vague aspiration that in the free trade agreement there will be an appropriate way of expressing mutual concern and respect for other people’s qualifications much as we do at the moment, but they do not give any detail about where that is going or how effective it is going to be in practice. When the Minister responds, will she give us a bit more meat on the bone there? This is at the heart of many people’s concern about this SI. It is not the specific issues it raises, because when you drill down, and perhaps ignore the Explanatory Memorandum, you find that it is actually technical and relatively straightforward and affects a reasonably small area but, as was picked up, ski instructors are being given no future so far as we can see. More widely, as a pillar of the future prosperity of this country, we need that ability for our services, which are the majority of our economic activity these days, and our assets in intellectual property, which exceed our physical assets. How on earth are we going to make a go of that if we have no mutual recognition and have to start from scratch getting all the documentation required for everybody who wants to operate in order to earn for our country abroad? These matters really are important, yet they are not dealt with here. It is not the SI that does not do that, but nevertheless the questions are there and need answers. I look forward to hearing the Minster’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this short debate and for their broadly supportive comments on this SI. I should like to conclude by emphasising that the changes contained in these regulations are essential. The UK is committed to protecting citizens who benefit from rights under the agreements, many of whom make valuable contributions to the UK workforce. Although these regulations focus mainly on protecting existing rights and not future arrangements, it is important that they make changes to ensure that the UK’s existing EU exit regulatory frameworks for RPQ and services will function effectively at the end of the transition period.
However, it is worth noting that the continuation of a recognition system after the end of the transition period is a temporary measure. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who asked what will happen when the transition period is over at the end of this year and how this will operate for people who gain their qualifications after that period, all those with recognition decisions achieved before the end of the transition period are protected for life.
Certain EEA and Swiss nationals who apply for recognition after the transition period will be able to seek recognition under the previous RPQ EU exit regulations laid in 2019. Those EU exit regulations amend the system for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications to retain aspects of the recognition system after the transition period so that individuals with EEA and Swiss qualifications that are equivalent to UK standards can have their qualifications recognised in the UK.
In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others who asked why we have been unable to secure mutual recognition with the EU, I remind her that the regulations are concerned with implementing reciprocal arrangements in the withdrawal agreement, not policy for a future recognition system. With regard to negotiations on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, we concluded the eighth round of negotiations with the EU on 11 September. Although there was little progress made, we had useful discussions, and we are still working hard to ensure that qualification recognition does not become an unnecessary barrier to trade in regulated services across the modes of supply between the UK and the EU. As negotiations are still ongoing, I cannot comment in more detail on the status of those discussions at this stage.
My noble friend also asked what will happen in the event of no deal on 1 January 2021 to those with professional qualifications across the EEA and Switzerland and what will be the position for those in the UK who want to practise in the EU, EEA and Switzerland. In terms of these future arrangements for UK nationals, it is not clear which no deal arrangements the EU will put in place. However, some member states have previously suggested that they will continue to provide recognition routes for UK nationals if an agreement is not reached. There is also the temporary system that will continue to provide a route to recognition after the end of the transition period for EEA and Swiss qualifications. I also note generally that, as I said in my opening speech, doctors and dentists are covered by separate statutory instruments laid by the DHSC and are not covered by this SI.
In response to my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who asked why we are disapplying the delegated regulation for ski instructors, the regulation establishes a common training test for ski instructors, but ski instructors are not regulated in the UK. The delegated regulation will have no practical effect in the UK after the transition period, as the UK will not be a member state, and therefore it will not apply to the UK or UK ski instructors after the end of the transition period. Disapplying it will not have an impact on the ability of UK ski instructors to work in the EU in future. This is subject to ongoing negotiations with the EU. UK ski instructors within the scope of the agreement who have already been recognised will be protected accordingly. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee what the EU member states will put in place for ski instructors who apply for recognition in a member state after the transition period. However, the UK is seeking to negotiate an ambitious deal with the EU. The UK’s negotiating position would enable UK ski instructors to continue to seek recognition in the UK after the transition period. Even without revoking the delegated regulation, it could not be relied upon by UK ski instructors in the EU once we are no longer part of it.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, this was discussed with the Scottish Government. The devolved Governments were involved regularly throughout the process of making the regulations. They have been supportive of our approach and did not have any significant comments. The regulations have not been controversial with the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government have consented to this SI by way of ministerial letter.
The noble Lord also asked for some more meat on the bone as to how the regulations will operate. I remind him that the regulations are concerned with implementing reciprocal arrangements in the withdrawal agreement and not policy for a future recognition system. I have answered on the recognition arrangements in the existing EU exit regulations and on the status of the negotiations. Further RPQ policy will depend on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU and the recommendations of a call for evidence being conducted by the business department. This call for evidence is looking at what our approach should be to the future recognition of professional qualifications from other countries and considering the UK’s approach to the regulation of professions more broadly.
To close, I underline once more that these regulations are a vital part of the UK Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. I recommend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
The Grand Committee now stands adjourned until 6.15 pm. I remind all Members present to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I remind 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 there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Intellectual Property (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Intellectual Property (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 13 July 2020, seeks to ensure that the UK’s intellectual property system functions effectively at the end of the transition period. Intellectual property plays a vital role in the UK economy. IP supports creativity, ingenuity and innovation and provides incentives for research and development. It is no surprise that the UK is a global leader in innovation.
Earlier this month, the World Intellectual Property Organization placed us as the fourth most innovative country in the world. UK research and development is at the forefront of the efforts to combat coronavirus, as seen by the progress made by the Oxford Vaccine Group and AstraZeneca, but that does not mean we should rest on our laurels. The instrument before us today ensures that we have a firm footing to look forward and take advantage of the opportunities available to us as a sovereign, independent nation to bolster our strength as a science superpower.
Last year, as noble Lords may recall, a number of statutory instruments on intellectual property were brought before the House. I shall refer to these instruments as the “original legislation”. These instruments ensured that retained EU law on IP operated correctly and that IP protection in the UK would be safeguarded if the UK left the EU without an agreement. However, as we know, that situation did not occur. The UK left the EU on 31 January, and the transition period provided by the withdrawal agreement means that EU law continues to apply in the UK until 31 December this year. Hence EU-wide IP rights have continued to apply automatically in the UK during this period.
The agreement obliges the UK to ensure the preservation of intellectual property rights which have effect in this country by virtue of our membership of the EU. Of course, this is a task which the original legislation had already taken up. We were always going to ensure that valuable IP rights were not lost, but we must now ensure that we do so in the context of the withdrawal agreement and the transition period.
The instrument before the Committee today therefore has three objectives. First, it will update the original legislation so that it reflects the application of EU law until the end of the transition period, fixing some small errors identified during the process of updating it. Secondly, it will ensure that any new EU law which has come into force since that original legislation works as retained domestic law. Thirdly, it will implement any obligations on the UK in the withdrawal agreement, where these differ from our approach in the original legislation.
The instrument is designed to amend the original legislation before it would come into force at the end of the transition period, which I acknowledge may make the drafting somewhat complex. Nevertheless, the aim remains the same: to ensure that the intellectual property system continues to function and that the valuable rights it provides remain in place. I shall focus on two of the more detailed areas in the instrument: the granting of equivalent UK rights in respect of EU trademarks and designs and new EU law on supplementary protection certificates.
In relation to trademarks and designs, the original legislation ensured that an equivalent UK right would be created for any EU trademark or design in force on exit day. This instrument moves the creation date of the new rights to the end of the transition period because, as I mentioned earlier, EU IP rights continue to apply in the UK until that date. This means that as many as 200,000 additional rights granted between exit day and the end of the transition period will be safely protected in the UK.
In addition, where legal action is being taken to challenge an EU right and a decision is still pending at the end of the transition period, the withdrawal agreement requires us to apply the outcome to the equivalent UK right once the decision has been made. The instrument sets out the process for dealing with the outcome of any such decision. It means that third parties will not be put to the expense of having to launch a separate action to challenge the equivalent UK right.
Turning to supplementary protection certificates, or SPCs, these provide an additional period of protection for patented medicines and pesticides, which must be approved for use before they can be placed on the market. These are highly valuable rights for the life sciences sector, which has consistently been the largest investor in research and development in the UK, investing more than £4.5 billion in 2018. The SPC system works as a balance between supporting innovation in new drugs and ensuring that those drugs become available cheaply, through generic competition, in good time. This enables the NHS to benefit from both.
The SPC system derives from EU law. The original legislation ensured that the system would function in the same way before and after exit day, preserving the pre-existing balance and avoiding changes which might affect when drugs enter the UK market. Last year, some adjustments were made to EU SPC law. Regulation (EU) 2019/933 created what is known as the “manufacturing waiver”. This allows third parties to make SPC-protected medicines in certain specific circumstances while the SPC is in force, without requiring the permission of the SPC holder. This instrument therefore accounts for this new law and ensures that it functions properly in a UK context. It keeps the circumstances in which the waiver can be used the same. This was the clear view of the stakeholders we consulted in a public call for views last year. Again, this preserves the current careful balance of interests in the existing SPC system.
There are also a small number of provisions in this instrument relating to copyright, database rights and the principle of exhaustion of rights. Changes in these areas are technical updates to the original legislation to reflect the existence of the transition period.
In conclusion, these regulations finalise the work carried out last year, providing certainty for holders of IP rights and users of the IP system at the end of the transition period. I commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I recognise that this is largely a technical instrument but it has considerable ramifications for the creative industries, so I hope the Minister will be indulgent about my ability to comprehend the finer details as I declare my interest as a composer rather than as a lawyer.
If I have understood it correctly, the central issue here is whether UK IP lawyers can represent rights holders before the IPO. I believe there is some contradiction between the EU and the British Government on this matter, with the EU saying that they cannot and our Government saying that they can. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to clarify that. Secondly, if there is no deal, that would see the UK’s IP legal community face greater competition than their counterparts, potentially weakening them. This clearly impacts on, or might impact on, the main issue for trademark holders, composers, writers, designers and others in the creative industries in relation to leaving the EU—their copyrights and ensuring that the high level of protection in directives is upheld.
Copyright, as the Minister said, is vital to maintaining the success of the creative industries in this country and, indeed, what they garner for the Exchequer. On a broader canvas, there is some good news. The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society—MCPS—is actively pursuing licensing in China. Last Friday’s Japanese trade deal with the UK has been heralded as going further in terms of copyright protection than the EU relationship, so I would be interested to know in exactly what way. Similarly, the Government have said that they no longer plan to implement the copyright directive agreed in the EU last year in the light of Brexit. How do they plan to ensure that services such as YouTube pay the fairer share to music creators which would otherwise have been afforded by the directive?
In 2015, the UK music industry won a landmark case against the UK Government, given their failure to award compensation for the use of music without permission on the grounds that it violated EU law. How can the UK music industry be certain that departure from the EU will not mean that copyright standards and protections will not be weakened if the standing of their legal representatives is undermined? Spotify and YouTube are welcome in many ways, but they discourage the sale of hard music. Why would you buy a £15 CD if you can access a pirated copy on the internet? If the Committee will forgive me giving a personal example, a couple of years ago I had a new piece at the Proms and to my astonishment it was available on YouTube within hours. It was certainly flattering, but very worrying because why would anyone want to record it commercially given its availability in the EU and around the world?
Our IP lawyers need strength to their elbows, not weakening of their grip. These are crucial issues for creators, so I look forward to some reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting a very complicated area very well. By way of background, I think it is only right to mention that I used be an adviser to two pharmaceutical companies, Upjohn, a US company, and Reckitt and Coleman Pharmaceuticals. I was also involved with Fisons. I was a director of a major advertising agency and most of my clients would have been covered by this area, which is, as the Minister said, vital to UK industry and commerce, so the document we have in front of us is very important.
I shall go through the Explanatory Memorandum paragraph by paragraph if I may. There are a number of questions. I do not expect the Minister to have the answers immediately to hand, but I would be grateful, if he feels it appropriate, if he will drop me a line afterwards. Paragraph 2.4 states
“which have been protected at an international level.”
Does that refer to the world intellectual property organisation? If not, who is it?
Later the paragraph refers to
“new database rights to UK nationals”.
I am always a little concerned about our overseas territories—I declare an interest here in that I have family working in the Cayman Islands, which are part of the overseas territories; they are UK nationals and have a very close relationship with the UK. Does this SI affect our overseas territories? Are they covered by it or is that for later?
Under the heading “What will it now do?”, paragraph 2.9 says
“certain decisions taken by EU bodies or courts on the validity of such rights are recognised in the UK.”
I am not entirely clear whether there is a time limit on that.
Paragraph 3.1 says
“This instrument corrects several drafting errors”.
Well done to the people who found them. Have any more been found since the SI was printed? It would not be unusual if there had been.
Paragraph 7.5 says:
“As far as possible, the approach remains to ensure that the law which currently applies in the UK will continue”.
Does the department have any particular worries about that statement? If it does, they should be brought forward and perhaps we should take action to try to remove them.
I confess, having read paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 several times now, that I—as someone who is reasonably good at reading and understanding legislation—find them a little confusing. When it is transposed into directions for interested parties, could someone have a go at an Explanatory Memorandum that is slightly less confusing?
To paragraph 7.14, I say hooray and well done. It says:
“This also provides legal certainty”,
and that is vital.
Are paragraphs 7.18, 7.19 and 7.20 saying that these continue without having to apply through the World Intellectual Property Organization? If not, I need some explanation why.
On paragraph 7.21, I am so pleased about the work done on design courts and unregistered designs. It is very important to the creative industry.
Paragraph 7.22 says:
“There is an exception where the grounds for revocation/invalidity would not apply if considered under UK law.”
That needs clarification; I can see some of the major companies asking themselves what exactly is being talked about there.
Paragraph 7.25 says,
“for up to five years”.
Was any consideration given by the UK Government to whether that should be lengthened? The Minister said at the beginning that we are essentially an innovative country. We are on the frontiers of all these technologies, and here we are, going on our own beyond the EU. It seems to me that maybe we will miss a trick if we stick to five years. We want to encourage more and more UK research, as the Minister said in his opening statement.
Paragraph 7.30 talks about UK export wording. This paragraph is very important. Have the chambers of commerce all been informed? They are probably, alongside the specialist groups such as the ABPI and the chemical industries, et cetera, the people who will be getting questions from relevant companies. I just hope somebody has briefed them. Consultation is talked about under paragraph 10; the ABPI and agrochemical companies are important, and I am sure there are others.
I turn to paragraph 10.3. Do I understand that this is all ready to go in terms of the forms that will be required and so on or are we still waiting on that? One of the criticisms that has been made by a number of trade associations is that while they understand the principle of what is happening when we leave on 1 January, they have yet to see any of the forms associated with it, so how can they prepare for it? I note under paragraph 10.4 that in reality they had only 22 days in which to respond, and that was during a holiday period, so one wonders whether that was enough time. Paragraph 10.5 states:
“Responses generally approved of the drafting of the legislation.”
The question arises: what did they not approve of and is that important to British industry? Finally, under monitoring and review, basically in my judgment: when will this be done and how regularly will it happen?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for raising points on the Explanatory Memorandum because it means that I will not have to go through it in the rather useful way that he has done.
In preparation for this debate, it was rather dispiriting to look back on the long debates we had in January, February and March last year, sometimes in both Grand Committee and the Chamber, on the original five intellectual property EU exit statutory instruments that are subject to amendment by this single draft SI. Much of the debate then centred on the lack of adequate consultation and impact assessments, the latter of which we still do not have. In the meantime, we have the provisions of Articles 54 to 61 of the withdrawal agreement and the consequent note of 29 January from the IPO on intellectual property and the transition period. It is admirably clear about what provisions are being put into place and is very helpful in understanding the outcome of this amending SI, but sadly it is not as clear about what is not being put in place and we are giving up.
As regards the creation of an equivalent EU trademark at the end of the transition period, the note makes it clear that businesses, organisations or individuals that have applications for an EU trademark which are ongoing at the end of the transition period will have a period of nine months from the end of the transition period to apply in the UK for the same protection. The position is similar for registered Community designs and unregistered designs. So far, so straightforward, but on international registrations designating the EU, the IPO note states:
“During the transition period, international registrations for trademarks and designs protected via the Madrid and Hague systems which designate the EU will continue to extend to the UK … We are continuing to work with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the mechanism to ensure continued protection.”
Can the Minister give some further detail of the progress of this work? As regards rights of representation, the IPO goes on to say:
“During the transition period, UK legal representatives will continue to have the right to represent clients before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).”
However, it goes on to say,
“The WA also states that the UK will not amend address for service rules for the comparable UK rights for a period of three years after the end of the transition period.”
This is what has given rise to huge concern among IP professionals. It is totally asymmetrical. What induced the Government to give this away? This is the loosest and most damaging of loose ends and, as I am sure the Minister is aware, trademark-intensive industries contribute £650 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product every year, providing an estimated one in five of all jobs. This will give EEA trademark attorneys a significant advantage over their UK colleagues and is likely seriously to damage the UK trademark protection industry, which is a world leader, and will be highly detrimental to UK firms and the jobs they support.
UK professional firms will be, by and large, restricted to UK-only matters with no mutual rights in Europe. While larger firms may choose to deploy satellite offices in the EEA to carry out EU work in the future, not all UK firms can afford such arrangements. UK trademark professionals will lose rights of representation before the EUIPO. There will, in consequence, be a loss of representation on IP portfolios and incoming IP work from a number of major countries and a major risk to professional livelihoods. EEA firms are being handed a completely unfair and anti-competitive advantage. The UK is not “taking back control” of its hugely valuable IP system—it is handing it over to European firms for nothing.
After significant pressure, the IPO woke up to the issue earlier this year. I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan in June—in answer to a Written Questions tabled in May—that officials at the IPO were having ongoing conversations with representative bodies over how best to address this matter once the transition period ends. The Government finally got round to publishing the consultation on changing the address for service rule on 27 July. The outcome of the consultation is not yet public.
Can the Minister give an advance idea of what the conclusion will be? As the address for service provision is incorporated in the withdrawal agreement, what flexibility do the Government have? What action can be taken? Does the weakness in the UK Government’s approach to negotiations mean that there is no level playing field in prospect for three years? Is there a constructive way of resolving the matter that does not depend on breaching the agreement, as seems to be the Government’s favourite method of proceeding in other respects?
As regards patents, the IPO note goes on to talk about the European patent system, which is unaffected by Brexit. What impact will the withdrawal from the unified patent court agreement without consultation or debate in July have on the UK’s innovators and protection of intellectual property after the transition period? The Minister may have read the important warnings from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on this subject in the Second Reading debate on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. What is the rationale for the withdrawal and how will it improve our intellectual property protection in the UK post Brexit? Of course, I welcome the extension of SPC system provided in the SI and described by the Minister.
Then we come to the area of the exhaustion of rights As the IPO note states in the withdrawal agreement, the EU and UK have agreed that IP rights exhausted in the EU and the UK before the end of the transition period will remain exhausted in both areas. However, what happens after the transition date as regards the legal exhaustion regime. The note provides a link only to brief guidance on parallel imports. Is the regime to be adopted still under consideration? I hope the Minister can give more detail.
On copyright, the note says:
“Continued reciprocal protection for copyright works between the UK and the EU is assured by the international treaties on copyright. This is independent of our relationship with the EU so is not addressed in the Withdrawal Agreement.”
It fails to mention the very valuable intellectual property rights—some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—which are being foregone by the UK’s refusal to adopt the new copyright in the single market directive. There is no agreement on portability for consumers, no enhanced duties for digital platforms in use of copyright material, no improved rights for authors and performers and no enhanced rights for publishers. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as to the consequences. On top of that, the EU orphan works directive will no longer apply to libraries, archives and museums and the position of our collecting societies is weakened. Broadcasting from the UK will also be more difficult. What happened to the Minister’s boast to me on 2 March that the UK has
“one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world,”?—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 389.]
Finally, there is a very large elephant in the room. There is currently no deal with the EU. Will we need to come back and amend these regulations yet again for the situation post transition? I hope the Minister is crystal clear in responding on that aspect in particular.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it has been a good, if brief, debate and has raised lots of important issues that I am sure we will be addressing over the months to come as matters progress. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am grateful to the other speakers for raising issues that, perhaps, we do not need to go back into, given that we are looking forward to the Minister’s responses to the broader points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. How welcome it is to have a creative presence in our discussions—not that we are not creative, but I mean creative with a capital C. I am also grateful for the comments on the detailed Explanatory Memorandum notes because we do not need to go through them in detail. I think the answers will be relevant to the questions I would have asked as well.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I recall the earlier debates surrounding the initial SIs on these matters. I do not want to go into too much detail on this point but I am still left with the view, which I think he referred to, that we seem to be offering quite a lot to European colleagues and former partners, both as regards the rights that they would enjoy up to and including the transition period and potentially beyond, but also in subsequent legal actions and representation issues. The asymmetry was not accidental but deliberate, and my challenge then, which I do not think I got a full response to, was that this whole approach being taken by the department seemed in some senses based on a misunderstanding. That is, if an attractive offer was made to the EU member states on all the intellectual property issues that we have been discussing this evening, we would land a better agreement after the transition period; in other words, the withdrawal agreement would be transmitted into a chapter within the free trade agreement which would be broadly as generous to us as it was to our European colleagues. That does not look quite so easy now. Certainly—plenty of discussions are going on in another place this evening—we may well not be in the same position later this week as we are today. That said, I still wonder whether the Minister could take on this issue and explain why he thinks that this set of arrangements, which in a sense are not touched by this SI because they merely reinforce what was done earlier in the year, are not really out of scope with where I think he wants to be, which is making sure that the British intellectual property industry is standing on its own two feet, able to defend its rights and its practices anywhere in the world, and to obtain the benefits from that.
I have now ranted a little about the broad arrangements, but as regards the particularities of this that we would like answers to, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are important. Is there an issue here about how representation in Europe will be managed in the future that will affect adversely our creatives? If there is any concern about that, the Minister should make that clear, and if not, he should be equally clear about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a point about consultation and the lack of an impact assessment. Again, we see very limited consultation and no detailed work on the financial implications of the decisions. It may not matter on the narrow issue relating to this SI, but I hope that this is not a precedent for future work. These industries are important to us, they are extremely valuable to our economy, and they deserve to be consulted. If I may make a general point, one of the problems with the Intellectual Property Office is that it has come from a place where it was a passive recipient and documenter of activity in intellectual property, and it has yet to establish itself as the foremost champion of those who work in the creative industries, which is what they need. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
I would also like more detail on the broader issues touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, at the end of his peroration. We have been through this in Oral Questions, but I do not think I have had a full and consistent response from the Minister. The copyright directive, which will come into force shortly in Europe and should fit within the withdrawal agreement area, is important for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave us. Consumers would actively benefit from portability, but that has gone. The question about whether the lack of activity in the copyright directive regarding what have previously been protected bodies, such as the major social media companies, which are able to argue that they are not publishers of other work, would have been attacked by the recommendations in the copyright directive on matters such as child protection. Are we not concerned about that, and if we are, how will that be resolved? We never seem to see legislation coming on online harms. Unless that deals with that effectively, we will be missing a huge trick.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also mentioned important issues to do with orphan works. I, too, think it would be a pity if we cannot get some of the value out of that that was in the copyright directive. It may be politically astute for the Government to say that it is nothing to do with this, but I hope the Minister will reassure us that the important issues raised by the copyright directive will not be ignored simply because of political expediency.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate on this important subject. This instrument is vital to ensuring that the IP system is effective and operable from 1 January 2021. Failing to address these issues would put valuable rights at risk and force businesses to go to the expense of litigation to clarify what can and cannot be done.
Innovation and creativity have never been more important or more valuable. This Government have pledged to increase UK investment in R&D, with the goal being to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027. The fact that we have the world’s most intensive science and technology clusters in Oxford and Cambridge—as determined by the World Intellectual Property Organization—shows the strength of UK science and innovation. Our R&D road map puts science and technology at the forefront of our economic and social recovery. Intellectual property is a crucial part of that effort, so that great research and ideas can be turned into great businesses.
The UK IP system is consistently rated as one of the best in the world, and the UK IPO is widely regarded for its expertise and international influence. To continue to be world-leading, we must be at the forefront of understanding how advances in technology affect the IP framework. Last week at London Tech Week, the IP Minister, Amanda Solloway MP, launched a call for views on the implications of artificial intelligence for the IP system, exploring how the framework may need to evolve with IP being created or infringed by AI.
We must keep leading on international discussions on these issues and more so that the global IP system works effectively for British businesses and those businesses have confidence that they can enforce their rights when they need to do so. International harmonisation is key to ensuring an approach to IP that benefits all nations, and we must continue to deliver high- quality rights granting services here in the UK so that the same confidence and effectiveness apply to our home market.
The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, all asked about IP lawyer representation rights. I do not think there is any disagreement between the Government and users about what the law means, but there is an ongoing matter concerning representation rights in the EU for UK IP attorneys and reciprocal rights here. The Government have taken on board the concerns raised by UK attorneys about their loss of rights of representation at the EUIPO and the unfairness they say will result in the UK. The IPO recently finished an online call for views on this issue and unsurprisingly received more than 1,000 responses. We are considering whether to reciprocate by requiring a UK-only correspondence address before the IPO, which would address the concerns noble Lords have raised. The withdrawal agreement does not affect this, other than in relation to the EU rights given equivalence in the UK under that withdrawal agreement.
Turning to the noble Lord’s remarks on copyright, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked about, the UK and all EU member states are party to the international treaties on copyright. They give rights holders cross-border protections for all their creative works. This will not change at the end of the transition period. On the future of EU copyright legislation, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the UK has now left the European Union. The transition period will end on 31 December 2020, as I have said. This means the UK is not required to implement the copyright directive, and the Government have no plans to do so. Any change to UK copyright legislation would come only after detailed consideration and assessment, including consultations with all of the relevant stakeholders.
On the Japanese-UK FTA, the noble Lord also asked about new protections for the UK creative industries. British businesses can now be confident that their brands and innovations will be protected. We have gone beyond the EU on provisions that tackle online infringement of IP rights such as film and music piracy. I cannot comment in more detail until the text is formally laid before the House, but I am grateful for the detailed comments made by my noble friend Lord Naseby on the Explanatory Memorandum.
My noble friend asked about international registrations. This does indeed refer to protections that are applied for through the World Intellectual Property Organization. He asked about decisions taken by EU bodies. Those relate only to decisions that are pending at the end of the transition period, although of course it can take several years for such cases to finally conclude. On the cancellation actions, in most cases the relevance of a decision under UK law will be clear. An example is an EU right that is invalidated because of an earlier national right in an EU member state. Guidance will be produced on what types of grounds may not apply.
I was asked about the duration of supplementary protection certificates. The key to the SPC system is the balance between encouraging innovation in new medicines and ensuring that drugs become available to patients cheaply through generic competition in good time. In that way, the NHS benefits from how long the SPC lasts, which forms part of that balance. How the landscape for medicines develops in the future will determine whether any further changes are needed.
My noble friend asked whether we are ready to go. The IPO is working hard and we are confident that it will be ready to administer the incoming IP rights effectively and correctly. There will be extensive further guidance for users on the updated official forms and other processes over the coming weeks and months. This will include written information, webinars and other materials. As I say, we will publish clear guidance. My noble friend will receive a copy and we will explain how the law is going to change in December and what preparations businesses may need to make. We will update the guidance to reflect the content of this instrument once it has been approved by Parliament. There will be many other outreach activities and we will make sure that any changes to IPO practices are notified in advance.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about discussions with the WIPO and protections for international registrations. The Government have worked with the WIPO to see whether we could retain international rights within its system. Through this work we have established that the safest approach for rights holders was to provide them with UK rights, and this is what we have done. He also asked about the Unified Patent Court. In view of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the UK no longer wishes to be a party to the Unified Patent Court system. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would, in our view, be inconsistent with the Government’s aim of becoming an independent, self-governing nation.
The noble Lord also raised the exhaustion of IP rights. This is a complex and indeed contentious area. Under the arrangements we have made, there will be no change to the existing exhaustion of intellectual property rules affecting the import of goods into the UK from EEA countries. However, there may be new restrictions on the parallel export of goods from the UK to the EEA. Businesses undertaking such activities may need to check with the appropriate rights holders to see whether permission is needed. The Government are considering options for a future exhaustion regime and we will consult again with the relevant stakeholders before any decision is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked about the negotiations on the free trade agreement with the EU. We are seeking an IP chapter that will secure mutual assurances to provide high standards of protection for IP rights which both the UK and the EU already have. I do not recognise his characterisation of the role of the IPO. It is renowned for and will continue to provide high-quality rights, granting services to support businesses in understanding IP and to take an active role in shaping the global IP environment. It remains a world-leading and highly influential IPO that plays its part fully in the UK’s high ranking in the Global Innovation Index.
In conclusion, this instrument will ensure the smooth functioning of the IP system as we exit the transition period. It will provide certainty and security for businesses which can be confident that their valuable rights will continue to be protected here in the UK. I commend the order to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Austin of Dudley
Introduction: Baroness Morrissey
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
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. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Anti-obesity Strategies
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of anti-obesity strategies on people suffering, or recovering, from eating disorders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, eating disorders are serious life-threatening conditions, and it is important that people have access to the right mental health support in the right place and at the right time. We carefully consider all views on our measures to reduce obesity. This includes feedback from a wide range of experts in response to our public consultations on specific policy proposals.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister says, eating disorders are indeed serious mental health issues, but their relationship with obesity is complex. Many obese people also live with eating disorders, which means treatment is not always as simple as rebalancing calories in and out. Does the Minister accept the expert advice that elements of the new strategy, like food labelling and calorie counting, are dangerous triggers for eating disorders, and that slogans emphasising personal responsibility stigmatise people whose obesity has more complex roots than a failure to get a grip? Will he agree to meet with me and eating disorder specialists to discuss how this important strategy can be more effective for its intended audience and avoid collateral damage for those people for whom “Eat less, exercise more” is a dangerous message?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that serious eating disorders are complex, and we need to resource the medical attention required by people with serious mental health issues. However, I do not completely align with her view that all obesity is not a matter of personal responsibility, nor that the education of people about the content of their food through labelling cannot be an important part of our battle against obesity. Covid has spelt it out clearly to all of us. Some 67% of the country is overweight in some way or another. But this is a policy that we are determined to get right, and I would very much welcome the opportunity to meet with the noble Baroness and her team.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Baroness’s question, do the Government have eating disorder experts, including those with lived experience, advising them as part of their anti-obesity strategy? It seems to me that is one way of making sure that the messages do not disadvantage those who have eating disorders. There is a reason why advocates for those with eating disorders have been very critical of the language being used. Could the Minister commit to reviewing the campaign in light of this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right: we do rely on the advice of charities, academics and experts in eating disorders. We do not do anything without full consultation with those who have expertise in eating disorders. We review the campaign regularly, and we will be taking into account the view and feedback of those experts, charities and patient groups as a part of that review.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, what action are Her Majesty’s Government taking to tackle eating disorders, especially among the young, whose mental health may have been severely impacted by the current Covid-19 pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone with an eating disorder has access to timely treatment. That is why we set up the first waiting times to improve access to eating disorder services for children and young people so that, by 2021, 95% of children with an eating disorder will receive treatment within a week. Figures show that in Q1 of 2020, 87.7% of children with an eating disorder received treatment within one week in urgent cases, and 86.8% within four weeks.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recent announcement of additional funding for community-based mental health initiatives and ask my noble friend whether the Government can ensure that their latest obesity strategy is mindful of and responsive to the underlying emotional issues, as detailed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. The causes are often far more complex than the Government’s current approach.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely endorse my noble friend’s views. When it comes to mental health challenges and connections between obesity and mental health, the resources need to be put in place and the sensitivity she speaks of applied. I return to my earlier comments: 87% of the country is involved in this. Not all have mental health issues; some simply need to take responsibility for their weight.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
The National Audit Office’s report last week on tackling obesity confirmed that there is limited evidence that calorie labelling in restaurants reduces total calories consumed. How will the success or otherwise of the Government’s proposed calorie labelling in restaurants be evaluated? Will it take into account the potential harm caused, given that the ability to track calories can be highly triggering for those with or vulnerable to developing an eating disorder?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are tracking the success of this obesity strategy, although it should be understood that this is generations in the making and may well take a while to work through. I come back to my previous comments: calorie labelling is a very important element of people’s education about the content of their food and often their drinks, including alcoholic drinks. We support that measure as an important part of our strategy.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take into account that in the south Asian community there are larger numbers of people with diabetes, heart disease and a lack of vitamin D? Through his campaigning and communications—he has been really mindful of this—will he try to ensure that we are also reaching communities in which exercise and sport do not always come as a first priority? Is he willing to meet with me and a team of people working on this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right, and Covid has really spelt out the challenge in this area to the NHS and the Government. The incidence of serious Covid effects on BAME communities has been more intense because of the prevalence of diabetes and overweightness in many of those communities. We have relooked at our marketing and communications to those communities and need to redouble our efforts. That is why, as part of the obesity strategy, we are putting in serious, concentrated efforts in reaching the communities, as my noble friend advised. I would be glad to talk to her about how we can do that better.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, children and adolescent adults with eating disorders battle multiple debilitating physical and mental effects. Eating disorders have one of the highest morbidity rates among psychiatric conditions, causing untold helplessness and grief for families and professionals constantly struggling with a lack of adequate financial resources and services, as evidenced by Ignoring the alarms: How NHS eating disorder services are failing patients, a report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In light of this report and a significant body of evidence known to health services and experts in the field, can the Minister assure the House that sufficient advice has been sought and a thorough, evidence-based risk analysis undertaken to mitigate the potential harmful, detrimental impact of the public anti-obesity campaign on those suffering and recovering from disorders?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure I agree with the premise of the question. It is not my belief that the anti-obesity campaign will generate massive negative repercussions. The NHS’s work in this area has developed immensely and we are putting a huge amount of money into it, including through our mental health strategy. I support the strategy we are applying.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the need for psychological support for people with such eating disorders is often identified through face-to-face meetings with GPs. Is the Minister satisfied that it is possible, in safe conditions, for people to obtain such meetings at the moment and that, if such a need is identified, sufficient psychological support is available for them?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is probably aware that a letter has been sent to GPs inviting them to step up to their responsibilities for face-to-face meetings. Everyone should have a face-to-face meeting if that is what they require and need. One of the surprising and interesting outcomes of the Covid epidemic is that many mental health services have been successfully delivered through video links. It has meant that people who may feel vulnerable about attending a GP’s surgery or mental health clinic have had the opportunity for consultations. We will look at how to expand that kind of interaction.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have spoken to GPs about this issue. Particularly in cases of obesity—which they all agree is more common for people living in deprived areas—they say the difficulty now is that patients do not come in person to a surgery. Therefore, if someone tells you their obesity is still well under control, you have no way of assessing that. They suggested that I put it to the Government that there should be better liaison between schools and GPs, because schools see families all the time and become good judges of whether people are putting on weight. They can also provide exercise and advice on diet. GPs are willing to look after these people but say that if you cannot actually see them, how do you know that what they are telling you is the truth? What will the Government do to encourage liaison between schools and GPs?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend makes an incredibly thoughtful, practical point. Of course, it is easier to tell whether someone is abiding by their obesity commitments if you see them face to face. With regard to schools, I remind her about the hundreds of millions of pounds going into school exercise through the sugar tax payment. That is completely transforming exercise in schools and will have a profound effect over many generations.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Rape: Prosecutions and Convictions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to increase the number of prosecutions and convictions in rape cases.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is ongoing work to improve the handling of these sensitive cases and to narrow the disparity between offences reported and cases going to court. In July, the CPS published its rape strategy—the first of its kind for any department. There is also an ongoing cross-government review of the criminal justice response to rape, and this is examining evidence across the system about the causes of the falls in outcomes for rape and identifying solutions to reverse the trend.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply but, according to police records, there were 55,130 cases of rape but only 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions in England and Wales, until March this year. With the prosecution and conviction rates at an all-time low, can the Minister say how on earth this happened? Swift action is needed, so how long will it take to improve these figures? What measures will he take to ensure that confidence can be restored for those who seek justice?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are conscious of the disparity between the number of reported cases of rape and completed prosecutions. As the noble Baroness observed, the number of completed prosecutions in the year to 2020 was 2,102. However, there are signs of improvement, slight though they may be at this stage. While the number of referrals to the CPS dropped between 2018-19 and 2019-20, the number of persons charged consequent upon those referrals has increased. We are taking steps to ensure that such improvements are maintained.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is quite obvious to those who have been watching this situation that both the CPS and the police drastically need some training and education. The obvious people to go to are charitable organisations that work with women and girls who have been raped. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me whether the review will encompass those organisations and when it will report?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is of course important to see proper co-ordination between the police and the CPS to address these issues. The CPS is planning to consult on rape legal guidance, and the Joint National Disclosure Improvement Plan represents both the CPS and the police. In addition, we now have a joint inspection going on between the CPS and police inspectorates, which we hope will report in the autumn, in response to issues about rape and serious sexual offences.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
What steps will the Government take to ensure that the long-standing principle in British justice of innocent until proven guilty for those accused of rape and sexual assault is always upheld? Given the recent examples where those falsely accused of such crimes had their reputations destroyed through speculation in the media and social media, how will the Government ensure that those defending such charges still have the right to an absolutely fair trial?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, wrongly and deliberately accusing someone of a sexual offence is a very serious matter and should be treated as such by criminal law. Clearly, the impact on those falsely accused and their families can be devastating. Fortunately, these cases are extremely rare and should not distract us from the need to support genuine victims of such crimes to come forward and feel confident that they will be listened to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Something is going wrong here. As my noble friend Lady Gale said, in 2019-20 there were 55,000 rapes recorded by the police, with just 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions; yet three years earlier, there were 44,000 recorded rapes with 5,000 prosecutions and nearly 3,000 convictions. The dramatic drop in prosecutions and convictions is put down by Sarah Crew, the most senior police officer for rape in England and Wales, to the Crown Prosecution Service increasing the standard before it will prosecute. This has led also to the police submitting fewer cases to the CPS, because they know it will not prosecute. What changes to the approach on rape prosecutions did the CPS adopt between 2016-17 and 2019-20, and has its approach now changed again?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, there has been no material change to the CPS’s approach. The evidential stage of the code test remains as it was, despite some suggestions to the contrary. Indeed, the most recent inspectorate report, in 2019, observed that the code test was being applied correctly in 98% of cases. But I acknowledge that we face challenges in this area, and we are seeking to address them, as I say, by way of a joint inspectorate examination of the issue and a cross-government review of how we can improve matters.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
First, the need for corroboration in rape cases was abolished; secondly, sentences were increased to a five-year minimum guideline; and then inquiries into the complainant’s character were forbidden. Then the defendant was barred from cross-examining in person, and video links kept the complainant out of the witness box. Recently, there was an exhortation that complainants are, prima facie, to be believed. Despite all this, conviction rates have fallen. Does the Minister agree that further reform should be evidence-based? Will the Ministry of Justice permit academics to look exceptionally into the way that real-life juries have reached their verdicts, whether guilty or not guilty, in a limited number of rape cases?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, the issue of engaging with juries about how they arrived at their verdicts is complex and difficult. To set a precedent there would be a material step. However, we recognise that it is necessary to address some of the ingrained misconceptions that still exist and persist around reporting these offences. We hope that, by doing that, we will improve outcomes overall.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Lord Judd? I suggest we go on to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and then come back, if there is time.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have had the painful privilege of becoming friends with young women who suffered such atrocities, including Caitlin Spencer, a pseudonym, whose story is published in the must-read book, Please, Let Me Go? She describes how, from the age of 14, she was groomed, raped, sexually exploited and trafficked around the country by gangs of men. She still sees her abusers driving their taxis with impunity, and many other victims still see perpetrators living freely and intimidating them. What more will the Government do to bring these perpetrators to justice?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, these are tragic cases. They are particularly difficult to investigate when they are historic. However, we remain determined to pursue all offenders, no matter how historic the offences are.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a previous Attorney-General asked for my views, as a criminal practitioner, on the failure to get convictions. Can I persuade the law officer’s department that there should be a special trigger mechanism for particular action whenever digital evidence might be an issue? Since consent seems to be the problem, will he also persuade the Attorney-General to instruct the CPS to publish details of how many cases of rape consent is raised in and how many convictions there are in consent cases?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am not certain that such data is available, but I will make inquiries to see whether it is or whether it can be collected, in a reasonable fashion. I will advise the noble and learned Lord upon the outcome of that inquiry.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Schools: Free Holiday Meals and Activities
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of proposals for a permanent programme of free school meals and activities during all school holidays.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are determined to ensure that children eat healthily and lead active lives. We welcome the National Food Strategy’s recent report and will carefully consider its recommendations as we approach the next spending review, including in relation to holiday provision. We are proud to provide invaluable support to children who are eligible for free school meals, and have taken unprecedented action to make sure that no child goes hungry throughout this coronavirus pandemic.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer and express my thanks for the free school meal programmes carried out during the summer vacation. That said, with the rise in family poverty and an increasing number of children admitted to hospital for reasons of malnutrition, there is undoubtedly a need for a more permanent system of free school meals during vacations in areas of need. Free school meals are even more urgent with the onset of winter and the continuing spread of Covid-19. By ceasing or limiting—or perhaps failing to make an overt commitment to—these programmes, are the Government saying that the problem of holiday hunger has in fact been resolved?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed to the Government’s great credit that £380 million was paid out to support people during the pandemic with food vouchers for free school meals. One of the recommendations of the task force that will be considered is that holiday activity clubs be extended nationally in part of the summer holidays, so we are taking those recommendations seriously.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, given the challenges faced by children of school age relating to Covid-19, funding for free school meals and activity opportunities during school holidays would significantly promote healthier living for the poorest children in our society and could form a key platform in the Prime Minister’s obesity reduction strategy for young people. What plans are there to fund food vouchers and holiday clubs for at least the remainder of this Parliament, and for measures to be taken to help children who have to stay off school because of Covid-19 isolation? If there are not any, why not? This would level up opportunity for young people through good nutrition and chances for exercise.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, with the return of schools over the last couple of weeks, in most environments the school kitchens will now be up and running and providing food. For those limited numbers of children who might not be in school, we have encouraged those services to make weekly food parcel deliveries and have encouraged local innovations in certain circumstances where vouchers have been used. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that, through the NHS, there is also funding for the Healthy Start scheme for pregnant women and parents with a child under four to get certain vouchers for healthy food for those entitled to certain benefits. We are looking to ensure that children have access to healthy food, not just food.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the evidence of many years shows that summer learning programmes really work to lift learning, skills and confidence for poorer children in particular? That helps to maintain their motivation, particularly when they then transfer to secondary school. Given the further evidence of lockdown, what is stopping the Government now from putting a systematic learning programme in place over the summer as part of the whole strategy to reduce the growing attainment gap?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, since 2018 the Government have funded summer learning to the tune of £9 million a year. It was open to schools to use some of the catch-up funding announced at the end of last term to provide summer schools and learning. As I have outlined, the holiday provision is subject to recommendation and consideration in the spending review.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that all children have a right to food. When we consider the national strategy, can we bear in mind a number of factors? First, we need to be flexible so that people whose families become unemployed during that period have access to the scheme. Secondly, the vouchers should pay only for food that contributes to a healthy diet. Thirdly, some of the technical problems, which I understand, need to be properly sorted out. It is not acceptable for struggling parents to have to access a helpline that costs £21 an hour to use.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there will be a census in October that will take into account the number of students now eligible to claim free school meals, and funding will follow that. I pay tribute to those who put up the Edenred platform at speed. There were some teething problems, but we managed to have 20,000 schools get vouchers via that system.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, one 22 year-old footballer, Manchester United’s Marcus Rashford, has had more influence recently on policy on child food poverty than any number of politicians or government agencies. Is there potential for the Government to work alongside other high-profile figures in sport and entertainment on this issue or more widely to promote higher standards in education and training?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, Marcus Rashford’s contribution to this debate was indeed welcome; it was a tribute to the fair and free democracy that we enjoy. He put his name behind the recommendations of the National Food Strategy, which we are looking at.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, listening to the Minister’s answers, I wonder whether she has missed the point of the Question, specifically that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. Back in June, the Government were forced into an embarrassing—although very welcome—climbdown about providing free school meals over the summer holidays. They rightly recognised the increased pressure on families, particularly those who have had to cut working hours, are unable to work or are on furlough or shielding so cannot earn their usual wage. Rather than wait for Marcus Rashford this time to put some pressure on the Government, we are looking for some reassurance from the Minister not about strategies for the future but about planning for October and Christmas. We do not want the Government to suddenly realise that these families are struggling; the planning should be done now to ensure that children are fed and cared for in the school half-term and the Christmas holidays.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed important to plan. In relation to the two previous vacation periods, the Government made those vouchers available. As I said, it is a welcome part of our democracy that there was a response to the contribution made by Marcus Rashford. This of course is an area of multiple departmental responsibility and, as the noble Baroness will probably be aware, £6.5 billion was also put in through universal credit, local housing allowances and the working tax credit system. I will update the House as and when there are any recommendations that we have agreed to from the National Food Strategy.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will build on what the previous speaker said. The Trussell Trust report published this morning revealed an 89% increase in the number of emergency food parcels given out in April compared to the year before. The furlough scheme has protected many, as we know, but by the end of the year, the trust reckons that an additional 670,000 people will be classed as destitute. I also want to ask the Minister about planning in two specific areas. First, I fail to understand why all people in receipt of universal credit should not be given free food for their children—free school meals and holiday meals as well. Secondly, why, throughout this pandemic and all these crises, has this problem been left to the charity sector, which has played a blinder in the last few months to deal with it, while the Government had to wait until the footballer knocked on the door and made it a huge issue?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the contribution of the Government is huge in this area: 1.4 million children receive free school meals. The Government introduced free school meal entitlement in 2014 to those in further education. However, it is welcome that the voluntary sector also plays a role in our society, and I pay tribute to its work. It is one of the silver linings to the terrible cloud of the pandemic that we have seen communities rise to give support. As children become eligible for free school meals in the October census, that eligibility will be passed through the system, so we are providing for children who need this, but it is a school meal that has been available during term time.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, although it is good to see that the Government have done something here, after a great deal of prompting, what has been done to ensure that even the representations from the Government’s own party are being registered without prompting from outside? I asked this the last time the issue arose, and the answer was a sort of “oh well, we’ve done something”, but remembering that on school meals it took Jamie Oliver to make them nutritious, something should be done here so that we listen to politicians.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Government are listening to all who contribute in this area. He will be aware that school food standards in this country are a matter of legislation, and as part of the child obesity strategy we are now looking to review those to ensure that what is provided in our kitchens is healthy food for children.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Motor Sector: Export Markets
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with United Kingdom-based motor manufacturers about access to export markets for that sector.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, the Government engage frequently with all the leading car manufacturers in the UK, including in relation to exports. A cross-section of UK vehicle makers is represented on the new trade advisory group and took part in the first meeting on 31 July to discuss access to those export markets involved in current free trade negotiations.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Nissan’s head of operations has said that its Sunderland plant will be unsustainable if there is no deal with the EU and we have to move to WTO terms so damaging for our motor industry. Can the Government give an assurance that there will be a deal guaranteeing a future for Nissan in Sunderland, the UK’s number one car maker?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working very hard to achieve a successful negotiation with the EU which will benefit our manufacturers, but I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the Japan FTA which we signed on Friday, to show what can be done. It allows UK auto manufacturers to access lower tariffs and tariffs that will, over a number of years, reduce to zero on a number of auto components such as road wheels, suspensions, systems and clutches. For some specific car parts, including speed indicators, the tariffs will reduce to zero.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a problem not only with exports but with imports, where the UK is a manufacturer of leisure vehicles such as caravans and mobile homes? This issue was brought to my attention by a member of my extended family who runs such a business in the Midlands, and I declare that interest. Germany has supported a boom in its leisure vehicle industry, with the reduction of VAT on parts, and as a result it has become increasingly difficult to purchase parts for the UK’s industry, which currently has such potential for expansion. To avoid a serious drop in production and sales, and potentially in UK staycations, will the Minister consider whether such an incentive could be provided in the UK to support a similar rule here?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point and I am aware of the great enjoyment that these vehicles give to people throughout the United Kingdom. I do not have the details of those matters, but I will write to the noble Baroness with them.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, after everything that the Government have said over recent days and recent years about the need to retain or gain complete autonomy and freedom over state aid rules, would it not be inconceivable that the deal with Japan that the Minister referred to would in effect put into a treaty—which we would have to put into domestic law—the EU regime of restrictions that the Government say they need freedom from in perpetuity? Surely that cannot be the case, so can the Minister reassure all those Brexit supporters in the north-east and elsewhere that the reports in the press about this action by the Government potentially replicating it are surely inaccurate?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the UK-Japan agreement contains standard FTA provisions on subsidies. Motor manufacturers, including those in the north-east, and their representative organisation have strongly welcomed the UK-Japan deal. These subsidy chapters in trade agreements help ensure that fair and open competition exists for both parties by working to limit the effects of trade-distortive industrial subsidies. The subsidies chapter in this UK-Japan FTA rolls over the provisions from the EU-Japan EPA.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what opportunities there are for UK motor manufacturers to diversify their supply chains so as to widen their sources of parts production to third countries which may be able to supply equivalent high-quality parts at competitive prices? Can he also say whether such opportunities will be only with countries with which we will have entered into FTAs by 31 December 2020, or whether they also include countries with which we expect to trade on WTO terms?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes an excellent point. Of course, these supply chains cannot be turned off and on overnight, but I have no doubt that our FTA programme in general is already helping auto manufacturers in this area, and our new Japan EPA has already demonstrated this utility. Our automotive sector deal supports the industry’s ambition to increase the level of UK content by value in domestically built vehicles to 50% by 2022, so we do not have to see these supply chains only located overseas. It is of course a huge benefit to the United Kingdom if they can be located in our country as well.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, some time back, the Government announced the formation of regional trade commissioners with great fanfare and a road map that would include the preparation of action recommendations. Despite multiple requests through Questions for Written Answer that progress be made available, to date nothing of substance has been forthcoming. What is the status of each of them? What consultations have there been with individual sector providers, and, importantly, when can Parliament finally assess progress as the result of a more transparent process to be established by the Government?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount refers to regional trade commissioners. These are senior officials who are in place throughout the world overseeing our investment and export activities overseas. He may be referring to the trade envoys system, which allocates parliamentarians to individual countries to support trade activities in those countries. These trade envoys do very good work and I am pleased to say that we expect to announce a list of new trade envoys very shortly.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will not the problem here be rules of origin and the target of 50%, which the noble Lord referred to in an earlier response? However, according to the SMMT, the proportion of a car made in the UK is currently less than 25%. Does the noble Lord agree with the SMMT that, if the current UK and EU FTA negotiations fail to deliver rules of origin provisions, there will be a 10% tariff on finished vehicles and trucks and up to a 4% tariff on parts when exporting to the EU, and that this will cost the industry more than $4.5 billion annually? Therefore, is there a plan?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, of course there is a plan. It is to conclude a successful negotiation with the EU in relation to these matters. That is vital because the automotive sector is extremely important to the UK. The UK exports 80% of vehicles manufactured, which accounts for no less than 14% of UK-manufactured exports.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this industry is deeply integrated with the EU and was already suffering because of Brexit. Honda in Swindon and Ford in Bridgend are both casualties, and the decision has been made by Ineos not to build in Merthyr. The pandemic has added more problems. Vehicle manufacturers need zero tariffs and the same regulations as the rest of Europe. Will they get that, and what tariff mitigation measures are the Government putting in place to protect the industry if there is no deal?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, we know that the automotive industry has concerns about the cost implications of any tariffs, frictions at borders and divergence in regulation following the end of the transition period. These are the very reasons why we want a relationship with the EU based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. Those are the objectives we are working towards.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said that new markets cannot be turned on overnight, but existing markets can certainly be lost overnight if there are punitive barriers in the form of high tariffs. What specific help will the Government give car manufacturers such as Toyota in Flintshire if they lose their European markets as a result of the Government’s failure to secure an adequate deal?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Because we recognise the importance of the automotive industry to the UK, we have various schemes in place to help support its transition and development. For example, we have our £1 billion automotive transformation fund, which is helping to develop supply chains and UK alternatives for the large-scale production of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, we need to have a five-minute break, as usual, so the House will adjourn until 2.06 pm.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid proceedings of the House will now resume.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the Statement this afternoon. It was taken in the Commons on Thursday and enacted at one minute after midnight today. The order was laid about an hour ago, but I am not sure when we will be discussing it. Noble Lords might have noticed that we are not short of Covid-19 orders to discuss in the next two weeks. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we might be discussing this one.
We are at a dangerous moment in the life of this horrible virus—one where we are being advised by SAGE that we need to bring down the rate of infection, which has increased alarmingly in the last week or so. Last week I asked the Minister about the R rate. I think we all understand that this has now gone up and might be as high as 1.7. Has a tipping point been reached?
Today, I want to ask about the alert level. Can the Minister confirm what assessment the Joint Biosecurity Centre has made of the risk? Have we moved to level 4? The Government have tightened restrictions on meeting in groups after a surge in infections prompted by these concerns, and we on these Benches absolutely support that. From today, it will be illegal for people in England to gather in groups of more than six.
It is the first time that the Prime Minister has imposed a nationwide lockdown measure since restrictions began to be eased in May. At a press briefing, he admitted that over time the rules “have become quite complicated and confusing”. Announcing the rule of six, he said, “We are responding, and we are simplifying and strengthening the rules, making them easier for everyone to understand.” Well, that remains to be seen.
The Chief Medical Officer has said that the number of cases has been increasing more rapidly. On 9 September, he said that, while the numbers among older people and children remained “flat”, in other age groups there were “rapid upticks”. Professor Sir Mark Walport, a member of the Government’s scientific advisory group, told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme that one might have to say that we are “on the edge of losing control”. He said that data suggested that, without action, Britain would be on a path “extremely similar” to that of France, where the numbers continue to rise.
Can the Minister advise the House how the Government arrived at the rule of six? Why not eight? Why not four? The Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, said that another nationwide lockdown remains a “nuclear option”. Can the Minister outline what additional national restrictions the Government are considering to prevent a return to a full national lockdown? I have a few questions on this.
The Government say that they will “boost the local enforcement capacity of local authorities by introducing Covid-secure marshals to help ensure social distancing in town and city centres, and by setting up a register of environmental health officers that local authorities can draw upon for support.” If the new restrictions are dependent on Covid-secure marshals employed by local councils’ public health departments, how many does the Minister believe will be required, and how will they be funded?
Can the Minister confirm whether and at what age children are included in the six? It seems that different countries have different ideas about this. In England it seems that a child under 12 is included in the six, but in other countries that is not the case. Why have we taken a different line on that?
I gather that sports are exempt from this, but can the Minister confirm that that includes shooting and hunting and that they are exempt from the ban?
This morning I received a copy of a letter to the Home Secretary from the leader of Hammersmith Council. I feel that I need to raise this because it is important that the Minister is aware that there is a Covid-19 outbreak among asylum seekers placed in a hotel in Hammersmith and Fulham. The council has been misinformed by the Home Office people dealing with this and that has led to an outbreak. Last week I was talking about a dissonance between the Department for Education and the Department of Health in terms of information that has been used to try to control Covid. Today I am saying that it looks as if there is a dissonance between the Home Office and the Department of Health. In this case, that will feed directly into the spreading of the virus, so it is a matter of some urgency for the Government and I draw it to the attention of the Minister.
Bolton remains the place in England with the highest rates of coronavirus infections, with the equivalent of 192 new cases per 100,000 people. That increase comes despite the Government implementing even tougher lockdown restrictions for the town, including a strict curfew for bars and restaurants. What is the next step? Are the Government considering closing pubs and restaurants?
We have mingling on public transport and in offices and restaurants and pubs. All these are factors where infections can happen and spread, so what plans do the Government have to review the back-to-work advice?
I have to talk about the availability of tests. There is an increasing number of people reporting problems, people still being referred to Aberdeen from 400 miles away and test centres still empty or not being used because tests cannot be processed. Please can the Minister own that there is a problem here, explain what the challenges are and tell the House how and when they will be resolved?
Finally, I want to highlight that the key to preventing mass outbreaks in care homes was the availability of testing for those homes. So how many care-home tests have not been processed in the last week or so? That seems to be vital. Care home providers are reporting a slight rise in care home infections, and we cannot possibly face a repeat of what happened during the last spike of the pandemic in our care homes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome anything from the Government that is based on rational evidence and can prove to be effective in this public health crisis to keep people safe and reduce the spread of the virus. So does this Statement live up to that? Unfortunately, yet again the sales pitch from the Secretary of State last week fell short of what is required to be effective. It has to be based on fact and scientific evidence that the public have confidence in and understand.
I have some simple questions for the Minister. Now that the scientific evidence has been produced, members of the public are asking why children under 12 and 11 are included as part of the six. Why can they be in a school in a class of 30 but from 3.30 pm they cannot be in a house with seven people, including their two grandparents? What scientific evidence exists to suggest that that causes more harm than 30 children in a classroom?
There is something else that people have asked me. Why is it that I can go to the office and be there with 20 people until 4 pm, but at 4.15 pm, if I go to the pub, I have to be in a bubble of no more than six? The evidence may be there, but it has to be explained in a way that those questions can be answered and the public have confidence in those answers. Inconsistency, rather than the public not having confidence, is one of the issues that the virus breeds on.
The public health message has to be clear and consistent. The regulations do not just bring in a power of six; there are quite a number of exemptions, including a legal definition of “mingle”: for the first time since 1393 it becomes illegal to “mingle”. Can the Minister give a legal definition of “mingling”? I can go to an event with six people but I cannot mingle beyond those six if it is an event run by a charity, a public body, a philanthropic organisation or a business. If I open the door for somebody and speak to them to thank them, am I mingling? If I stop somebody who I know and speak to them, am I mingling? What is the legal definition? That is going to cause confusion and not be consistent.
These regulations and rules have to be developed in a collaborative manner with local areas to be effective. Why was the Local Government Association informed of the Covid-secure marshals only one hour before? If the rate is rising so fast and we need to be effective today to monitor six people and no more, where are those marshals’ powers as of today and in which legislation?
It is quite clear that action needs to be taken to stop this virus, but it is time for the Government to stop and be much more strategic and considered and to implement legislation and systems in a more collaborative way. People’s lives and livelihoods depend on the Government getting this right, but unfortunately this Statement is not a complete and right answer.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their perceptive and thoughtful questions. On the noble Baroness’s questions about the level of alert, to my knowledge it has not changed. It was reduced from four to three on 19 June; it remains subject to review on a weekly basis, but we are not in a position to raise it at the moment.
The noble Baroness asked about the rule of six and why we had committed to six as opposed to anything else. The short answer is that we are seeking to have rules that are simple to understand and straightforward to apply. We accept that during the last few months the guidelines have grown increasingly complex and difficult to understand in all their detail. Across the board, with “Hands, Face, Space”, the rule of six and other measures that we are seeking to publish, there is a genuine effort to engage the public in a really simple lexicon of how we can beat the coronavirus.
Sir Mark Walport, the head of UKRI, was right in his warning that the jeopardy is enormous. If we do not get this communications challenge right, and if people think they are confused and think they have a way out because it is in some way complicated, we will fail, the disease will come back and we will have tens of thousands of deaths; we will have an NHS that is challenged; we will have an economy that is shut down; and we will have a generation that is lost to education. Those are the stakes, so we are determined to get it right. I am happy to stand here for as long as it takes and be pub-quizzed on “What about this? What about that?” if it means that we get it right.
However, the public seem to understand these simpler rules. The response from the public in our planning focus groups and in the response since their publication has been extremely positive, and we think we are on the right track. This is advice that was informed by SAGE and we went through its models in great detail.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked why children are included. The bottom line is that we want to keep it simple. Children are vectors of infection; they can pass the disease from one generation to the next. Time and again, in city after city, we have seen an infection that starts with a young person, moves to mum and dad, then to grandma and grandpa. It takes weeks or sometimes months for that progress to take place but, as I have said at this Dispatch Box before, as night follows day, the infection moves through the generations unless we take steps to break the chain of transmission. The rule of six is a critical, unambiguous step in the Government’s strategy for doing just that.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about marshalls, so let me just say a word about that. This measure came from our engagement with local authorities. Local authorities are looking for ways in which they can implement the right measures to disrupt crowds forming and, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, mingling—a concept which, frankly, I do not think needs much description and nor do members of the public. In order to break things up, they are looking for ways in which they can have both the authority and the personnel to do that, and we have responded by putting in the right regulations to do that and by providing the right resources. But it will be up to local authorities to implement that in detail.
The noble Baroness asked about shooting and hunting. My understanding is that guidelines on all sorts of sports and activities where the rule of six is in any way ambiguous will be issued in the coming days.
The noble Baroness asked about Hammersmith, and I am extremely grateful for the tip-off. I will look into it, as I have done when other noble Lords have alerted me to concerns they might have. I am extremely concerned that there might be a breakdown in the asylum centre in Hammersmith. However, I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that directors of public health are responsible for this kind of implementation, and the benefit of directors of public health is that they work across all departments. Some directors of public health have a health background, some have a police background and some come from a leisure background, but they all hold the ring when it comes to local implementation of local measures, and therefore they are the best-placed people to ensure that situations like this are not overlooked.
The noble Baroness asked whether we should be reviewing the current measures for pubs, clubs and workplaces. The simple answer to that is yes, absolutely; we should be reviewing it—and we do review it every single week. We are on tenterhooks because, if we get this wrong, the jeopardy is enormous. We are working as hard as we can, with regulatory measures such as the rule of six, marketing measures such as “Hands, Face, Space” and containment measures such as the test and trace programme, in order to keep the economy open, to keep our educational institutions open and to keep life as normal as we possibly can. If we do not—if we fail—it will go back to where we were before, and I hope memories are not so short that people do not remember quite how imposing and draconian the former lockdown was.
On test and trace, the noble Baroness quite reasonably asked about the capacity and about demand. I can reassure her that the capacity has literally never been higher. We are up 7% week on week and—if I can provide the right figures here—we will have a capacity of 500,000 by the end of October. We have 500 centres, including five major laboratories, 236 mobile testing units, 72 walk-through testing sites, and more sites opening all the time. For every 1,000 people in this country, we test 2.43 a day; that compares with Germany at 1.15, Spain at one and France at 1.15.
We are throwing everything we can at the test and trace system, but it is true that demand has gone up. Part of that demand is through children returning to school. I welcome enormously the return of children to school, but it is an un unambiguous fact that this has led to a very large increase in the number of children being sent to testing centres—often bringing their parents and other household members with them—and that has put an enormous pressure on the system.
Another feature is asymptomatic testing. Estimates are that between 20% and 25% of those turning up for a test are currently asymptomatic. If we had all the tests in the world, that would not be a problem and I would welcome it, but right now we are building the system, we are under pressure and we need to communicate more clearly to the public that asymptomatic testing is not supported by our current testing system.
The noble Baroness asked about social care—quite rightly, as this is a major feature; we are concerned about it, and I know that noble Lords are concerned about it. I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that care homes are absolutely our number one priority. This was reiterated in meetings with the Prime Minister last week. Some of the capacity challenges in places such as walk-in and drive-in centres are because we have put care homes front of the queue and because those tests are taking priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked a number of extremely detailed questions, some of which I have touched on. He asked why we have included children. He is entirely right that, in Scotland, they have not included all children and in some other countries they do not do so either. We have taken a different view. Partly, that is on the epidemiological advice from SAGE; partly, that is on the marketing advice from our communications department, which is insistent that we are clear and unambiguous with the population; and, partly, that is the CMO’s advice—he rightly identifies children as potential vectors of infection, particularly in intergenerational households.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked for consistency. Well, we are consistent in that we are determined to break these chains of transmission. The science is not simple; if it were, the disease would have been beaten. It bounces around, and we are doing our best to fight it. We are communicating as best we can on all the science we have.
In terms of collaboration, I pay a massive tribute to all my colleagues at the department, in other departments, in local authorities, at PHE and in the NHS. It is difficult for me to explain in great detail in a short amount of time the immense amount of cross-departmental, inter-agency collaboration that has sprung up around Covid. The amount of data that is shared, the number of Zoom calls and the working together are absolutely phenomenal. The noble Lord cited that the LGA did not know about the marshalls plan until the last minute; I am afraid to say that it must have been the last one on the list.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, last week I pursued the question as to whether there were precedents for using emergency powers under an old Act—this is an Act from 1984—and also whether the Government had any plans to change the procedure to one that is more like what we have come to expect over many years, so that we debate these regulations before they came into force. Many of the questions that are asked would be much sharper if the debate was before the regulations came into force. It would be better, because the future is more interesting than the past—and doubly so in these hybrid days, when debate is not as easy as it is in normal circumstances. Indeed, one reason for thinking that we should change is that there must be an impression that the Executive are riding roughshod over us, when what is actually needed is consensus—as has been indicated by the two Front-Bench speeches today—and I think that consensus is available. Will the Government have another think, decide it is better to be in front and implement some changes that will make Parliament’s job easier?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments, but my perspective is slightly different. The fact is that this disease is incredibly aggressive and nimble; we sometimes have to turn decisions around literally within hours. I cannot think of another situation, other than war, where the decision-making has to be quite so quick. I would love to be able to bring regulations to this House for full debate in advance of their implementation, but no human institution can move at that kind of speed—it is just not possible. In answer to his question, we have no plans to switch horses at the moment. We are working as hard as we can to bring regulations here as quickly as we can, and I pay tribute to the House authorities for doing everything they can to put regulations in front of the House as quickly as they can.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Office for National Statistics records over 52,000 deaths of people whose death certificates have Covid-19 as a contributory cause. More than 42,000 of these deaths were of people over the age of 65. As the numbers of infections increase, which they are, more older and vulnerable people will be infected—as has happened in France—leading to a rise in hospital admissions and deaths. What plans do the Government have as the rate of infection increases in our country to protect the elderly and more vulnerable?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are discussing, among other things, the very regulations we are putting in place to protect the elderly and vulnerable. The rule of six, although not part of this provision, is an emphatic commitment to protect the people whom the noble Lord cites. I add that we are concerned about not only the elderly and vulnerable; we are increasingly concerned about the phenomenon of long Covid, which hits the young. It is one of our objectives to rid this country of Covid altogether and to protect all demographics.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lady Thornton’s question about the alert level, the Minister said that to his knowledge it had not changed, although it was subject to weekly review. However, these are the Government’s own levels. How can the level stay at number 3, which means “virus contained”, when number 4 means “virus not contained”? Does the Minister really think that an average travel requirement of 6.4 miles to a testing centre, with 10% of people having to travel up to 22 miles, is acceptable after all these months?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The change in the alert level is done in consultation with the CMO and it is his advice that the circumstances have not changed enough for us to move it. On the average travel time, most reasonable people would consider six-and-a-half miles a reasonable distance to travel for such an important test.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, why is it safer to allow six individuals from different households to meet together indoors, rather than limiting it to members of two families?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the phenomenon we had noticed was that large groups of people, sometimes in pubs and sometimes in other congregations, would seemingly be from two households, but that the actual definition of “household” was proving to be extremely flexible in the minds of many people. Therefore, putting an integer into the formula makes it much clearer.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
May I return to the issue of political gatherings, which my noble friend and I discussed last Thursday? He mentioned that protests such as those we have seen recently from Extinction Rebellion might not be outlawed quite yet, but it is not really a matter of outlawing political protest—I did not ask for that. However, can he understand how deeply outraged many would feel while spending their Christmases abiding by the very difficult rule of six if, out their window, they were watching political protesters who do not give a monkey’s about the rules? Will he confirm that political protesters are subject right now to precisely the same rules as the rest of us?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend’s point, but I remind him that the regulations come into force later today. It is up to the Metropolitan Police to implement crowd dispersal but the sentiments he expresses are ones that I share.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister please accept that while there may be good reason for the Government to ratchet up further the restrictions on social distancing, it is surely unreasonable to at the same time pressure people to return to their offices? These two objectives are incompatible, as was shown by government officers last week. Surely the Government should accept that they can press either greater social distancing or a return to offices, but not both?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this Government are pressuring anyone into doing anything. We are keen to give those who have a reason to, whether personal or professional, the confidence to return to their workplace. I pay tribute to the very large number of employers who have invested a huge amount in making those workplaces socially distanced and safe for employees.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Statement makes it clear that the numbers of cases are rising. Will the Health Minister give the House his personal assurance that sufficient personal protective equipment will be available, unlike during the first wave?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am very glad to make that assurance: 13 billion items of PPE have been procured and made available for NHS, social care and other key workers. I pay tribute to my colleague and noble friend Lord Deighton, who has led our efforts on this. The situation is completely transformed from that of earlier this year.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the past week, over 700 schools have reported Covid cases among teachers and pupils, but getting a test is difficult for many. I declare an interest: my seven year-old grandson went back to school last Monday and got a high temperature. He was told to stay at home and his parents tried all week to get a test for him. They were sent to Brighton and eventually managed to get one 10 miles away, but that is because they have a car. What happens to families who do not have a car but want their children to go back to school and not lose out? Why are test kits not being made available to schools or local authorities, maybe in clusters, to enable equal access for all children and teachers to such kits so that they do not have to self-isolate unnecessarily for 14 days and can—like my grandson, whose test was thankfully negative—go back to school?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her testimony, which completely resonates with me. The current national prevalence is around one in 1,500, so there is a strong likelihood that, in a school with 1,500 kids, one of them will turn up with Covid. We are aware of the challenge of febrile children who have a temperature, as children often do, and are naturally anxious to get a test. We therefore provide kits of tests to schools, but we are not able to turn schools into testing centres—I do not think that parents, teachers or schoolchildren would like us to do that. We have also prioritised social care, the protection of hospitals and the asymptomatic testing of key workers over schoolchildren for the moment. As our capacity increases, that will be reviewed.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, this virus has shown it is extremely difficult to eradicate or keep under control until a vaccine is produced. I ask the Minister about people being asked to isolate because data has shown that some are facing real hardship. We are told that this is a central reason for people sometimes ignoring advice. Are Ministers looking at the possibility of helping with extra financial support?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right that the isolation protocol is extremely onerous for some people and has a huge impact on their life, mental health, income and social life. I completely understand the point she is making. We are keeping the question of financial support under review and will continue to look at this important subject.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, picking up on one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, what arrangements have been made to enable compliance with the rule of six for asylum seekers living in reception centres or hostels that have communal facilities for eating, sleeping, washing, cooking and leisure time? This could be a national issue, not just in Hammersmith. Also, why is there no link on the National Asylum Support Service website to any Covid information or advice in languages other than English and Welsh?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, asylum hostels are one example of a very great many that will have to put thoughtful arrangements in place in order to comply with the rule of six. I pay tribute to their efforts.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, why insist on a mask-wearing policy totally at variance with international practice? Surely, by now the Government can admit to the major benefits: they alert others to danger, signal an element of risk and, when worn without valves, protect both users and those in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, why not revisit the whole policy and promote the enforcement of wider and appropriate usage—a very, very much needed U-turn?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s campaigning on this issue; he has contributed to the Government changing their strategy on mask wearing. However, we are here discussing the onerous burden that these measures put on people in this country, and we have to be careful not to overburden them. The CMO’s guidance on masks is that the science remains ambiguous. I know the noble Lord does not agree with that, but that is the CMO’s advice. We have come a long way on masks in order to change policy on this and, as the scientific evidence changes, we will review that policy.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
Since the Minister wants to keep things simple, could he explain to families that are separated what the rules now are? In my case, I am a single father of three young boys who live with me every other week. They live in a household of six on the other weeks, and it includes another child who also lives in another household part of the time. Which of us are allowed to get together when?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, that is the pub-quiz question of all pub-quiz questions. There are special provisions for families that are, like the noble Lord’s, separated or complex. Those guidelines have been published, I believe, and I would be glad to send him an email with a link to them.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
[Inaudible]—simple rule and the long overdue emphasis on better and stricter enforcement. Does my noble friend not agree that when a law is systematically and routinely broken and not enforced, it brings the rest of the law into disrepute? Therefore, will he encourage the police, in the strongest possible measures, to stop turning a blind eye to massive house parties, raves and woke demonstrations and tell them to get off their knees and enforce the law?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely endorse my noble friend’s comments on raves, but the effectiveness of these measures is reliant not just on police implementation but the compliance of the British public. While I understand his point on mandation and police action, it is really the personal decisions and social pressure of the British public that will make these work, and I cannot help but pay tribute to them for their sensible approach to Covid to date; that is where our trust really lies.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, following on from the previous question, effective policing requires the consent of those being policed, and those enforcing it need good training and interpersonal skills. Covid marshals—when they are actually implemented—could well face some resistance from those who have had enough of being told what to do. Will marshals have the power to issue fixed penalties, and does the noble Lord agree that friction with them could cause breaches of the peace and place even more demands on the police themselves?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not know the precise legal powers of the marshals, but I remind the House that city centres and public areas frequently have civilian marshals of one kind or another to help guide public gatherings. This is a not uncommon aspect of city and public life, and I have an enormous amount of faith in the good sense of the British public to go along as requested without legal mandation.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, the WHO’s watchword has been “test, test, test” to isolate the disease, so I am in favour of the Prime Minister’s stated ambition of mass testing. With regard to Operation Moonshot, have the Government a date in mind for testing audience members at theatres and sports venues? Secondly, does the Minister agree that we should now be testing at airports, as British Airways is asking for?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have embraced the “test, test, test” recommendation in a very big way, and the noble Earl is entirely right to aspire to using testing to enable a return to the economy, theatreland and all sorts of public gatherings. We are looking energetically at this, working with suppliers, academia and the NHS to figure out ways of using the new testing technologies in the way he describes.
However, we are at a relatively early stage and I am not able to make announcements on this here today. We have funded—to the tune of £500 million—a huge amount of investment in these technologies and, when they are right, we will roll them out in the theatres and airports of Britain.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard a lot from the Minister today about the importance of obeying the law, yet a Bill has been introduced in the other place today that essentially sees the Government seeking to break the law. I refer him to what Geoffrey Cox, the former Attorney-General, said this morning:
“When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the consequences are unpalatable. By doing so he pledges the faith, honour and credit of this nation and it diminishes the standing and reputation of Britain in the world if it should be seen to be otherwise.”
He went on to say:
“It is unconscionable that this country, justly famous for its regard for the rule of law around the world, should act in such a way”.
Does the Minister think this a good example to the public, and does he not fear that the appeal to the rule of law regarding the rule of six might just fall on rather stony ground?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am here to support the regulations before the House, not to comment on the issues about which the noble Lord asks.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has previously congratulated people in my part of Lancashire on how well we are doing, which I do not quite agree with; we are working hard. Why are people, whether in our borough or the surrounding ones, still not able to book tests locally when we usually have three testing stations going? Some are being told to ration the number of tests they do each day, which involves gaps of perhaps two hours when they will not accept any bookings, even though the testing kit and the people are there, and the tests could be carried out. However, people are not being allowed to use them.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the amount of testing we are doing is increasing enormously. Most people who book a test do get it locally, and that test is delivered quickly and on time. The result arrives within 24 hours and we are doing a million tests a week, which is well within the bounds of our business capacity.
The noble Lord is right that the system is under scrutiny and pressure. Not everyone is getting a test where and when they want it. However, overall, it is reasonable to ask people not to make frivolous demands upon the tests, and to ask that those who are asymptomatic wait until there is further test capacity before they step forward to ask for their test.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what the Government have identified in English children under 12, including babies, that makes them, to use his phrase, “a vector of infection and a Covid hazard”, that does not apply to children in Scotland, who have been back at school for weeks? And on the subject of making things easier to understand—simplifying matters—why is it okay in England to meet one’s grandchildren in the pub but not in their family home if the household consists of six people?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, Scottish children are just the same as English children, but the Scottish Government have decided to take a different approach; we celebrate the differences between our two nations in this. With respect to meeting in the pub, you cannot meet more than six people in the pub and you cannot meet more than six people between two households. The arithmetic is reasonably straightforward.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that face masks are a critical component of slowing the virus. Following on from the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other noble Lords, how self-sufficient is the UK expected to become in the supply of PPE, and are there targets for the supply of face masks in particular?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have taken huge steps in the domestic production of PPE. In some matters, where the production is relatively straightforward, such as aprons, we have taken huge steps forward and the vast majority of our production is done at home. For some products, such as gloves, that are more complex because of their shape, we are having to work harder. The progress of my noble friend Lord Deighton’s Make strategy for PPE has been profound, and we are looking at making up to half of our PPE requirements in the UK.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, given the intrusive and damaging effects, especially on family life, of the decision to limit social contacts to six people, can the Minister say why it was decided to apply this both inside and outside, rather than to follow the Welsh Government’s position of applying the new ruling only to meetings inside? Does he agree that medical evidence suggests that the chance of contracting the virus outside is tiny in comparison with inside, and that, with regard to his quest for simplicity, nobody is so simple that they cannot tell the difference between inside and outside.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree that everyone can tell the difference between inside and outside, but everyone also has eyes, and may have seen, as I have, how people crowd together in the forecourts and beer gardens of Britain. If they were all standing on draughty hillsides with the wind blowing the disease around, that would be one thing, but the simple fact is that our prevalence has gone up—the evidence speaks for itself—and that is why we need to be clearer about this simple measure.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the US 513,000 children have been infected as of 3 September, with 70,630 cases reported in the past two weeks. Only this morning in my locality, all reception classes bar one were shut down due to the Covid infection of a teacher. As a father, the Minister will understand that many parents remain fearful and are seeking assurance and evidence of safety. Holding the Government to account after a tragedy has occurred would be meaningless. What lessons can we learn from our friends in the US and elsewhere about minimising the spread of infection among teachers and children in the UK, with the inevitable consequence of transmission to their homes and vulnerable loved ones in their families?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, policymakers around the world are facing exactly the same dilemma. We are determined to have the schools back, because the long-term effects on young people—particularly the least advantaged—will be profound if we shut the schools. The noble Baroness is entirely right to say that parents are naturally concerned that the safety of children, and other generations that they may come into contact with, is at risk. That is why we are massively prioritising the return of schools and introducing measures such as the rule of six to break the chain of transmission and thereby protect the schools from closure.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who I should call now.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
Thank you, Deputy Lord Speaker. My noble friend has talked about Covid, but I think it is important in the same debate to talk about the flu injections that are available to help people reduce their ability to catch Covid. Will my noble friend ask the pharmacies that are distributing flu injections to step up their communications, in particular to people with south Asian backgrounds, who are slightly resistant to going into pharmacies to get flu jabs? I know from my experience of having to persuade my mother that this is an issue, and it would be helpful to get the communications about getting flu injections out as quickly as possible, so that people build up their immunity as quickly as possible.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are hopeful that this season the number of flu injections will be a massive increase on previous seasons. We will, therefore, be putting huge responsibility on the shoulders of pharmacies and pharmacists to deliver them. I take on board completely the very good advice from my noble friend about the reputation of pharmacists compared to GPs, particularly in certain communities. I trust that the pharmacy profession will be doing an enormous amount to promote the flu injection itself, and to reassure its customers about the efficacy of its service. It is, however, an idea that I will take back to the department.
Baroness Noakes (Con) [V]
My Lords, when we had questions on the Statement last Thursday, I asked the Minister two questions that he did not answer. I have another opportunity now. Can the Minister say what evaluation the Government have made of the economic and societal impact of alternative responses to the spike that we are seeing in infection rates? Secondly, will they publish that evaluation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have a very clear example of what will happen to the economy if the infection comes back. We will have to close down society as we did before, and the economy will suffer profoundly as a result.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Most of the Covid measures made under the Public Health Act 1984 have major adverse effects on the economy and on the treatment of other fatal diseases. We cannot go on like this indefinitely until we have a vaccine. We need a new strategy that offers a degree of protection where it is needed, for example in care homes and for the very elderly, and that restores economic and social life. Are the Government now developing such a strategy, and when will we hear about it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend describes in the most beautiful and succinct way exactly the strategy that we are following. It balances on the one hand a fight against disease, a breaking of the chain of transmission, the protection of the NHS and the saving of lives, and on the other a measured, thoughtful and reasonable opening up of the economy, workplaces, schools, shops and other valued economic assets. We are working hard to get that balance right. I believe that we have got it right, but we are open to suggestion and we review the situation incessantly. Until we have a vaccine and other therapeutics to fight this disease, that is the life and the road that we will be walking.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 14th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
This is day three in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 70, to which I was pleased to add my name, but I will first speak in support of other amendments which provide for a time limit for detention.
I first encountered this issue as a member of the inquiry into detention by the APPGs on Refugees and Migration, which reported in 2015. The evidence we received convinced me of the case. It is frustrating that, despite a wide consensus in favour of a time limit—including among a number of very senior Conservative MPs—we are still having to argue the case five years on. I hope that the Minister is not going to trot out the usual Home Office line that the law does not allow for indefinite detention, an assertion based on semantics. She knows full well that by “indefinite”, we mean “without fixed or specified limit”—to quote one dictionary definition.
It is the absence of a fixed or specified limit that is so problematic. In particular, it has been shown to contribute to serious mental distress among detainees, a point made in the literature review conducted for the original Shaw report, and reinforced by subsequent reports, including by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee and, most recently, by the Jesuit Refugee Service this year. That report emphasises the trauma experienced by detainees, which stretches beyond the period of detention itself and is relived indefinitely over the years to come. It found that the lack of a time limit laid down was particularly problematic, and that
“not knowing when one would be released was central to an uncertainty that pervaded the experience of detention. Both long detention and the indefinite nature of detention were also seen as increasing the injustice of its practice.”
When debate on this amendment started, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked the Committee to imagine how we would feel with that uncertainty—that draining away of hope. Gabby—not her real name—a woman helped by Women for Refugee Women, to which I pay tribute for its work in this area, put it powerfully. She said that
“indefinite detention destroys people. People who are imprisoned in detention already have mental health issues when they get locked up—and the longer you stay there, the worse it gets. My hair started falling out, and I had flashbacks to what happened to me before”—
she was referring to having been trafficked—
“Not knowing when you will be released had such an effect on me. I kept thinking: will I be kept here forever?”
I know the Minister will retort that no one is detained for ever—her definition of “indefinite”—but that is how it can feel when you do not know when it will end, which is the usual definition of “indefinite” in this context. Gabby was in Yarl’s Wood, and it is welcome that no woman is now being held there. Can the Minister say if any women are being detained elsewhere and, if so, where and how many? If she cannot answer now, will she write to the Committee afterwards?
The release of many detainees into the community in recent months demonstrates that detention does not have to play such a significant role in the immigration system—a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the other day. In this context, will the Minister update the Committee on how the alternatives to detention pilot is going?
Turning to Amendment 70, damage to mental health is a common thread in the case for all these amendments. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he introduced the amendment. Medical Justice, to which I am also grateful for a briefing, wrote about the “devastating” health impact of segregation. It says that it has been found to lead to increased rates of anxiety, perceptual disorder, hallucinations, paranoia and suicidal thoughts, as well as serious physiological effects. The mental health risks for those with pre-existing conditions and other vulnerabilities are especially high. In particular, anyone who has suffered segregation as part of past torture might be re-traumatised by it.
Medical Justice also makes the point that segregation can be counterproductive. The Government’s argument that restrictions on segregation would jeopardise IRCs’ safety and security serves to ignore the deeper systemic problems that contribute to the “need” to remove people from association—for example, poor standards of healthcare, abusive or bullying attitudes or behaviour, oppressive regimes and the impact of indefinite detention itself. If the Home Office addressed these systemic problems, fewer people might behave in such a way as to call for segregation. The Home Office does not publish data on the use of segregation of vulnerable people. Could the Minister explain what they do not and commit to publishing this data?
Finally, as I read the Minister’s complacent response to the amendment in the Commons Committee alongside the briefing for Medical Justice, it seemed like the Minister was living in a parallel universe from the organisation on the ground. Indeed, the Member who moved the amendment made a similar point. I am confident that the noble Baroness will not display the same complacency, but I hope she will accept that there is a real problem here that must be addressed, even if she is not willing to accept the amendment itself.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the campaign for a time limit on detention has deservedly gathered pace over the past 10 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, two parliamentary committees reporting in 2019—the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee—urged a 28-day limit. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made two important points. The first was that indefinite detention—the noble Baroness dealt with that term—
“causes distress and anxiety and can trigger mental illness and exacerbate mental health conditions where they already exist.”
Secondly, it pointed out that
“the lack of a time limit on immigration detention reduces the incentive for the Home Office to progress cases promptly which would reduce both the impact on detainees, and detention costs.”
It therefore called for a 28-day limit.
The Home Affairs Committee pointed out that some people are being held for more than three years, which is intolerable. It said:
“Failure to provide justification for continued detention will only compound detainees’ frustration and may lead to self-harm and violence in immigration removal centres.”
It welcomed the Home Secretary’s commitment at the time that he—that must have been Mr Javid—would
“consider ending indefinite immigration detention in response to Stephen Shaw’s follow up report.”
It went on to say that
“a maximum immigration detention time limit is long overdue … lengthy immigration detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm.”
I understand that the Government’s policy guidance says that there should be no detention without a realistic prospect of removal, but this appears to be routinely breached.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this amendment is about basic human decency; I am very pleased to support it. Personally, I would like to scrap immigration detention altogether. It is inhumane that we as a country are doing this to people. Convicted murderers and paedophiles get better treatment than refugees and asylum seekers fleeing war, famine and persecution, often as a result of our own foreign policy. They just want to find a better life.
This amendment would place important restrictions on the dehumanising practice of solitary confinement. Solitude is often used as a psychological torment to break a person’s spirit and enforce compliance. It should be used in only the most extreme cases, as set out in the amendment, and be subject to many safeguards. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ludford, covered some of the issues I wanted to talk about, including time limits, so I will cut my remarks short. Will the Minister please take all these amendments away and work with your Lordships ahead of Report? I hope she will be able to give that assurance.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 39 to 41. I say from the start that I broadly support the Government’s policy on all these matters. All these amendments would have a similar effect. They would make it very difficult to detain a person who claimed asylum for more than a few days, irrespective of the facts of the case. It is surely perfectly obvious that such measures will make it extraordinarily easy for any claimant simply to disappear into the very large community of illegals—perhaps 1 million—that we already have in the UK.
We have to consider these amendments against the background of current events. A substantial and growing inflow of migrants across the channel is, understandably, very unwelcome to the public. They rightly perceive that they have nearly all come from a country that is safe, whether France or Belgium, and that they are not in fear of their lives. This is confirmed by Home Office evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 3 September, which said that, of those crossing this year, 98% claimed asylum, half of which had been considered so far, and 80% of that number had been refused. Some 71% were refused because we are not the responsible country. That, of course, is because they travelled through a safe country before they arrived here.
It follows that for those who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers—I of course accept that many noble Lords and noble Baroness are concerned about them—the situation has to be tackled if public support for the asylum system is to be maintained. However, limiting detention to 28 days, as proposed in Amendment 39, would exacerbate the crisis of immigration enforcement and undermine support for asylum generally.
People need to feel confident that the asylum system, which costs the taxpayer £1,000 million per year, is producing a worthwhile result. The main effect of a 28-day limit on detention is that false asylum claimants would have only to spin out their claim or make some false statement that could not be refuted in the allotted time before being released and potentially disappearing. Indeed, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has found
“little evidence that effective action was being taken to locate the vast bulk of absconders”.
It follows that illegal immigration—which, by the way, 77% of the public consider a serious problem—would intensify. The credibility of the immigration system as a whole would also be further undermined.
Some Members will remember that, on the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly pointed to the crucial importance of the integrity of the immigration system in the eyes of the public at large. It is a continual surprise to me that others in the political arena seem to have failed to get this absolutely central point.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important amendment. So many of those involved have been through unspeakable, disturbing—even horrific—experiences. Detention is really not appropriate for any of them but, if there is detention, it must be strictly monitored and should certainly be for only a limited period of time; 28 days is surely more than long enough for the authorities to be able to establish reasons for declining residency to people who are in detention.
The practice of detaining people, as referred to by Amendment 70, is unspeakable when you think of the kind of backgrounds many have come from. The other practical point I make is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases with which we are dealing, people are ultimately released from detention. This makes it all the more obvious that something is wrong. The system needs very close attention; these amendments help us to provide that kind of focus.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of this group of amendments and, in particular, address my comments to Amendments 39 and 40. I concur with the excellent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the introduction to this debate, as well as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others who have spoken since.
I would like to further emphasise the human and moral cost of our current and proposed detention system. The effect of indefinite detention, which lasts in some cases for months or even years on end, is devastating on the mental and physical health of detainees. Hopelessness promoted by a lack of knowledge over what comes next and flashbacks to past trauma are common experiences.
I offer an illustrative example, collected by the Jesuit Refugee Service, of the impact of our present system. Oliver was conscripted into the army at 17. He had no choice—he was taken off the street one day on his way home from school. He managed to escape after eight years but was captured, imprisoned underground and tortured. He was the victim of human trafficking twice, once being sold into slavery and once when he was taken to Europe. He arrived in the UK in July 2015, immediately made himself known to the authorities and claimed asylum. He was taken into immigration detention at Dover and moved to Harmondsworth IRC.
Oliver spoke no English. He had committed no crime. The incarceration triggered flashbacks to his imprisonment underground in his home country. He was examined by doctors and found to be suffering from PTSD. He had clear injuries on his body, which were ratified by a medical examination as being signs of torture conducive with his experience. After three months in detention, he was released to Section 4 accommodation in Cardiff. A year later, he was suddenly detained again and taken by taxi from Cardiff to Dorset. This time he was released after 18 days and finally granted indefinite leave to remain in 2019.
I could have filled a much longer speech with many other examples, including those of children, victims of trafficking, slavery and sexual abuse, and of people repeatedly detained in a highly traumatic environment that served no purpose in protecting the wider public. These amendments do not dispute that detention can serve a valuable, even critical, purpose, including—in a small number of cases—the protection of the public. What these amendments would do, however, is demand that the purpose of detention is clear and justifiable in each case, and cannot be of unlimited duration or used repeatedly in ways which have been shown to be immensely harmful to detainees. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, I believe that the public recognise that detention for long periods is not the way that we treat human beings in our country. We all want a better, respected asylum system, but detention detracts from that. I hope that the concerns in these amendments can be addressed.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is quite some time since my colleague and noble friend Lady Hamwee introduced this group of amendments with such eloquence and in her customary informed, thorough way. I would contrast her remarks with the assertions made by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. In speaking on this group of amendments, I wish to take us away from the traditional route of making policy by assertion and look towards some evidence.
In normal times, there are usually between 1,500 and 2,000 people detained under immigration powers at any one time. When the pandemic kicked in earlier this year, in March, there were about 1,400. According to Detention Action, that number then fell because of the fears of Covid striking in both prisons and IRCs. By 21 April, the total number of people had fallen to 708; 368 of those were detained in IRCs and 340 under immigration powers in prisons. So the number of people had roughly halved in a very short period of time.
What was the effect of that—on public safety, on levels of absconding or on anything at all? We all know the public cost of detention; it is about £30,000 per person per year. We know from the eloquent testimonies across the House about the cost to the health of individuals of being detained—and, principally, of being detained indefinitely for long periods. Can we begin to talk about the cost and benefit to the Government of indefinite detention? We hear very little about that.
As I will not be speaking again, I want to address one other issue. The Minister quite rightly told us at the beginning of our debates that this legislation was simply a matter of unifying the way in which the country treats people making asylum or immigration claims from the EEA and Switzerland with those from the rest of the world. She will not be surprised to hear that I think we treat LGBT asylum seekers from all over the world appallingly. We have spoken about this many times.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, here we are again. I recall many occasions like this in the past, and I see some familiar faces. This is my first intervention on this Bill, and in view of what has already been said, I will be very brief.
As we have heard, these amendments contain the accumulated wisdom of several legal experts and several trusted organisations over many years. Put simply, not only is it wrong and inhumane under our normal rules and customs to lock up detained people for long periods, we do not have to do it, except in very few cases. The right reverend Prelate made it clear that people must not be locked up indefinitely. Look at the consequences: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, mentioned cases of self-harm, trauma and suicide.
No one should be redetained. Removals are necessary—they have to be done—but they must be arranged more efficiently so that the relevant documents are in place. If they cannot be so arranged, and removal is not imminent, there must be an automatic bail hearing with judicial oversight.
This generous amendment, which has been carefully crafted, provides six months’ grace for the Government and will save them a lot of money. I know immigration is causing a lot of problems, but surely the Home Office should finally accept this amendment now or before we have a vote on Report, which otherwise seems inevitable.
Lord Hylton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part in this Bill until now—perhaps a relief to your Lordships. However, I would like to emphasise that the hybrid proceeding is no way to conduct the Committee stage of a Bill with so many implications. I asked the usual channels to look seriously at what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said last Monday on returning to more normal procedures.
I support Amendment 39 and the others in this group. In connection with bail, is there now a backlog in applications for bail from immigration detainees? If so, what are the Government doing to ensure that such applications are promptly heard?
These amendments point to a much wider need to reduce the use of immigration detention, which is expensive and harms the mental health of detainees, sometimes leading to suicide. I understand that the UK is the only European state to allow detention for an unlimited period. Even in the case of foreigners convicted and jailed, with a recommendation for deportation, better co-ordination between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office should ensure that deportation takes place immediately on release from prison. I hope to have a positive reply on this point to a Question for Written Answer recently tabled.
In conclusion, I note that the June report from the National Audit Office stated that total voluntary and forced returns to other countries had fallen dramatically since 2015. This is perhaps understandable, given coronavirus and a lack of flights. The report also spotted regional variations in enforcement. Much intelligence is still not being assessed or used. I trust, therefore, that enforcement will soon improve and that official statements will avoid terms that increase fears and xenophobia, such as the labelling of all unofficial landings or arrivals as “illegal”. I trust that progress will be made on all angles of this group before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, does not wish to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this debate has focused on several new clauses which are to be inserted after Clause 4. I have signed up to Amendments 39, 40, 41 and 94, along with my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hamwee, who opened this debate last Wednesday. I am also supportive of Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
The risk here—it is all about risk—is that many people will not have their status sorted and will not have put a claim in, and are then at risk of detention. Immigration detention is something that should happen only in the most necessary cases and for the shortest period of time possible. My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett set out, with examples, the effect of detention and the damage of not knowing when you are going to be released on individuals and their mental health. We need to think about that: we can all accept that being locked up and not knowing when it is going to end is not a good place to be.
Taking that into account, can the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, when she responds to the debate, tell us what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the minimum number of people are detained and for the shortest possible time? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said she expected to be told that most people are released from detention after a short period of time, but we need to think about those who are not.
There is also the risk of redetention: when a person reports who is required to do so and then finds themself detained by the authorities. How long will it take for an application to remain to be considered? As we have heard, Amendment 39 would impose a strict time limit of 28 days and ensure that detainees could not be redetained unless—I emphasise “unless”—there has been a specific change in circumstances.
Amendment 40 sets out the conditions for a person to be detained in the first place and Amendment 41 provides for bail hearings during the initial detention period of 96 hours. Amendment 94 brings in the provision six months after the Bill comes into force. This gives the Government time to get all the procedures and regulations correct. I agree with the comments made in that respect by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
As I said earlier, I am supportive of Amendment 70, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others. This amendment raises the issue of those individuals in immigration detention who are segregated and at risk of being locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. I fully accept that there must be rules and that people must be protected from either themselves or from others, or from causing harm to others. However, we also must be mindful of the effects that detention—of being locked in a cell for long periods of time—can itself have on someone’s mental health. Again, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett made reference to this in her contribution. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said in his contribution that these people have committed no crime. They themselves may be the victims of horrific crimes, and periods of detention can be long and re-detention is a real risk. When considering these amendments, we have to think about the effect of the risk of being re-detained on individuals who may, in the end, be given leave to remain in the United Kingdom. We must remember that these people have committed no crime here in the UK.
I will leave my remarks there; I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about regretting the hybrid procedures, I am very glad of them; they protect noble Lords from the numbers, which are clearly going up.
This is another group of amendments that are not relevant to the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords know that, and I know that they are keen to discuss this issue. They feel very strongly about immigration detention, which has been discussed at great length in this Chamber, but that makes it no less important.
We must have an immigration system which encourages compliance and protects the public. Where people no longer have the right to be in the UK, we must be able to carry out their removal if they do not take the opportunities we provide them to leave the UK voluntarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about the concept of unlimited detention. The noble Lord asked me to list the safeguards to ensure that decisions to detain and to maintain detention are not unlimited. When someone is referred for detention, an independent detention gatekeeper assesses that person’s suitability for detention. Since 2016, the gatekeeper has rejected more than 2,300 referrals for detention. After an individual is detained, their continued detention remains under regular review at increasing levels of seniority, especially where there are any significant changes in circumstance.
Anyone detained can apply to either the Home Office or the courts to be released on immigration bail at any point during their detention. In addition, independent panellists and specialists within case progression panels provide really important oversight of the appropriateness of anyone being detained under immigration provisions at three-monthly intervals. Automatic referrals for bail also occur at the four-month detention stage for non-foreign national offenders, providing additional external oversight of detention decision-making. Immigration removal centres also provide those who are detained with access to legal advice should they need it.
The introduction of a detention time limit would severely limit our ability to remove those who refuse to leave voluntarily, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pointed out. It would encourage and reward abuse and, as I have said, there are a number of measures in place to safeguard against any prolonged or unnecessary use of immigration detention.
The decision to detain people who no longer have the right to be in the UK is an integral part of the removal process, but we do not detain indefinitely. There must always be a realistic prospect of removal—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, shaking her head—within a reasonable timescale, and this requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person whose detention is considered. It is already used sparingly: 95% of people who are subject to removal from the UK are at liberty in the community, and the detention estate is now almost 40% smaller than it was five years ago, with 8,000 fewer people entering detention in the year ending December 2019 than in 2015.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The problem that I have here is that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament, things will move along very happily and then, many years from now, when we are all no longer doing what we are doing now, all these problems will arise whereby things are not done properly. We could have immigration centres with Italian and French citizens, people who have lived here but have not regularised their situation, being locked up and held for days and things—and that is just an anathema. My worry is that sometimes things are done and then, many years later, different people come along, things are not done so well, and there is a problem.
I am concerned about the innocent people. I am not concerned about people who have committed offences, who need to be dealt with—this is about innocent people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. They potentially could have been our friends and neighbours, living in our country, who have not regularised their situation. Unfortunately, mistakes happen, for all the assurances, and people find themselves taken away, probably quite unfairly, locked up and stuff. I want to hear a bit more about how we are going to deal with those sorts of situations. I am talking about the innocent people. How are we going to look after those people, who have done nothing wrong? We are all agreed on those who are criminals and have done bad things, but what about the innocent people, who are treated unjustly? That is what I want to hear about.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We will be talking about the EU settlement scheme in future groups. As I will go on to explain, the scheme does not end, in the sense that, if people are here, certainly between now and 2020, and want to regularise their status, they can do. Of course, the reasonable excuses rule will go on indefinitely as to why people have not regularised their status.
Obviously, these amendments have nothing to do with the Bill, but I hope that I have outlined the various degrees of safeguards that will guard against people being detained indefinitely. We will go on to talk about the EU settlement scheme and some of the safeguards that go around that, particularly ongoing, with people who have missed the boat. I hope, with those explanations, the noble Lord is happy.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is absolutely right about the numbers of people who may find themselves in a situation—and not even be aware of it—which is not regularised. Yes, we will come on to talk about the settlement scheme, and perhaps we will pick up the Minister’s words about the possibilities of applying some way into the future.
The Minister started as I expected, by saying that these amendments are not relevant to the Bill and that if we were to include them, we would be discriminating against people who are not from the EEA or Switzerland. It is entirely open to the Government to apply these provisions to everyone, as I think they should be. They are relevant to the Bill. My noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Paddick made it clear on an amendment last week.
We started debate on this group of amendments late on Wednesday and as a result some noble Lords were unable to take part, or cannot participate today. Two have asked me to make a short comment on their behalf. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I include them now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 42. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division, should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 42
Baroness Hamwee
“Right to rent (EEA and Swiss nationals)
(1) The following provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 shall cease to apply to EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependants.(2) The provisions are sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 (right to rent).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that landlords do not carry out immigration checks on EEA and Swiss nationals under the Right to Rent scheme.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42. I will speak also on Amendments 50 and 71. These amendments deal with the so-called hostile environment measures. That phrase is used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her Amendment 71, which extends to the Data Protection Act; that is the subject of the next group. I am aware the term used now by the Government is “compliant environment”, but I am concerned with the substance not the terminology.
We have turned citizens, our public services and the police into border guards. We have dumped on them the enforcement of immigration control. The policies encourage us to be suspicious of each other and undermine trust in our public services. People are deterred from seeking medical treatment for fear of a large bill or being reported, detained or deported. An answer to this would be that emergency treatment would not be withheld. A condition not an emergency today may still need treatment and it may become life-changing or life-threatening.
To what end is the hostile or compliant environment? I understand that the Home Office acknowledges that the “vast majority”—I quote that term—most of whom are people who came here legally but subsequently lost status, have done nothing wrong. Landlords are required to check the immigration status of potential tenants and face huge fines or imprisonment if they fail to check or get it wrong. Can it be any surprise that many landlords take the easy course and look for tenants who are British passport holders? They must regard this as being simply practical, not discriminatory. It is—though without any real sanction.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, whose action against the Home Office continues, says on its website:
“It takes BME people and migrants up to twice as long to find a home to rent as a white British person.”
Recently, the organisation the3million commissioned a poll of employers in connection with its campaign for physical documentary proof of EU settled status; we will come to that shortly. The poll seems relevant to this issue. It was a poll of professionals with authority over hiring decisions. It said that it was worth noting that the picture is bad when considering all employers in the UK; the fact that the poll was online means that there will be a certain amount of oversampling of employers who are more comfortable with digital technology. This affects EEA and Swiss citizens in the immediate short term, but the Government aim to roll out the digital-only status to an ever-expanding group of immigrants.
The poll’s findings included the fact that employers are very concerned about the consequences of getting it wrong. This creates an incentive to play it safe and avoid recruiting people from outside the UK, so there is just the same risk of discrimination as in the landlord/tenant sector. Thank goodness the “Go home” vans were short lived.
We can address only address legislation through our amendments. The legislation sets out the policy, and from the policy, practice flows.
A week ago, Ian Birrell wrote an interesting and powerful article in the i about the impact of our arrangements. He talked about the large number of people who
“had never bothered applying for passports, while the Home Office had lost their papers”
and then discovered that they were “technically undocumented”. One young woman who found herself in that situation was precluded from attending university, for which she had qualified, and is behind a report showing how lives are “distorted and damaged”—her words—by a
“callous bureaucratic system that sows division, hurts mental health and condemns families to more than a decade of massive financial strain … Talk to these young adults and you hear tales of life on the edge as they are pitched into a Kafkaesque process that is complex, intrusive, often incompetent, demands huge and constantly rising fees”—
the fees are no little part of the picture—
“yet make one mistake and, like a dystopian game of snakes and ladders, applicants slide back down to start the torturous … process to citizenship again.”
I will discipline myself and not quote further from the article, but it ends by saying that
“the horrors of the hostile environment have not faded”.
The Government talk of welcoming people from the EEA making a home here within the Immigration Rules, but the application of the hostile or compliant environment legislation does not say, “Welcome to the UK.”
I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 71 in my name and also to Amendments 42 and 52 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford. They cover parts of Amendment 71 and also Amendment 43, which covers data sharing.
I pay tribute to the campaign group Liberty for its help with my preparation of this amendment and for its support through its unfortunately unsuccessful struggle to see its scope allowed to cover everyone affected by the hostile environment, rather than just those who face being newly affected by it—for whom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the digital-only status is likely to create particular issues.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her opposition to the hostile environment in her Amendments 42 and 50—an argument eloquently and powerfully made by her. The hostile environment has turned our citizens into border guards and made us suspicious of our fellow citizens, even those legally in the UK. On right to rent, it is the safest option for landlords to rent to white people, or British passport holders if landlords go beyond seeing the white face in front of them.
The evidence suggests that the Government’s right to rent scheme is being seriously enforced against only those who require a visa to enter the United Kingdom and not those who are allowed visa-free entry. This again calls into question whether the Government are really serious about ending the free movement of EEA and Swiss citizens, or indeed the free movement of B5JSSK citizens. The only alternative explanation is that there is no way of legally enforcing right to rent against these citizens.
When I spoke to the first group of amendments a week ago, I referred to A Short Guide on Right to Rent, a publication in which the Home Office advises that landlords can establish a B5JSSK, EEA or Swiss national’s right to rent by checking their passport, which will have no stamp to show when they entered the UK, together with evidence of the date they last travelled to or entered the UK.
I have had the opportunity to go back to make sure that the Home Office advice I referred to was up to date. It is even worse than I thought. I quote:
“Acceptable evidence of entry to the UK may include (but is not restricted to) one of the following, or a combination of: An original or copy* of a boarding pass or electronic boarding pass for air, rail or sea travel to the UK … An original or copy* airline, rail or boat ticket or e-ticket … Any type of booking confirmation (original or copy*) for air, rail or sea travel to the UK”.
There is an asterisk by the word “copy” and an explanation that
“a copy can be a hardcopy such as a photocopy or an electronic copy such as a screenshot”.
The Government are clearly not serious about enforcing right to rent for citizens of these countries, as landlords have to see not even the original ticket, boarding pass or travel booking but an easily forged photocopy or screenshot.
Not only that, the guide goes on to say:
“Although these individuals only have six months’ leave unless they obtain a visa, landlords who have correctly conducted a right to rent check will obtain a statutory excuse for 12 months and must schedule a follow up check … before the end of the 12-month eligibility period if the individual is still occupying the accommodation.”
The Home Office’s own guidance talks about landlords being required only to do a follow-up check six months after EEA, Swiss or B5JSSK citizens should have left the country. At that point, the EEA citizen could produce another ticket, boarding pass or booking showing that they entered the UK within the last six months, and the landlord could then rent for another 12 months.
The question has to be asked, and I would like the Minister to answer this: why are the Government insisting on strict enforcement of right to rent against those who require a visa to enter the UK but apparently relaxed about those from B5JSSK countries and, at the end of the transition period, EEA and Swiss nationals? The Government either are not serious about enforcement of right to rent against these citizens or accept that it is unenforceable against them.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments but particularly propose to speak to Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I declare an interest: I have a property that I rent out. It is let by agents, in part precisely because the idea that I as an individual know what I should be looking for, in terms of right to rent, becomes really quite difficult. I will not discuss that any further.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talks about the so-called hostile environment. My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that it is now known as the “compliant environment”. There should never have been the concept of a hostile environment. We heard earlier, at the end of the previous group of amendments, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, uttered by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, reminding us of the importance of our values. As the United Kingdom prepares to end the transition period, it is as important as ever that we abide by our values that are open and tolerant.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 42 seeks to repeal the right-to-rent scheme introduced by Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the 2014 Act. That chapter, coupled with amendments made to it by the Immigration Act 2016 and amendments made there to the Housing Act 1988, requires landlords and their agents to refuse accommodation to people who require, but do not have, permission to be in the UK. Landlords and agents may indeed face criminal sanction if providing accommodation in these circumstances.
As Amnesty firmly argued in its excellent brief, the impact of this regime is more widely harmful for people of colour. It essentially promotes homelessness and race discrimination—for example, because it becomes safer for landlords to avoid providing accommodation to people who are not white, do not have recognisably British accents and have non-Anglo-Saxon-sounding names.
Amendment 50 essentially seeks the repeal of other provisions of Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014, which provides for an immigration health charge and restrictions on who may open a bank account or obtain a driving licence. It is particularly important to emphasise the need for a repeal of the immigration health charge. As Amnesty again forcefully argues, it is nothing more than a tax upon people coming to the UK to work, study or join family—people who are already taxed by immigration fees often set far above the administrative cost, over and above the taxes that they, like others, pay by reason of their living and working in this country.
In the sad legislation before us, we need to take these points very seriously indeed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I do not know what is going to be included in the Government’s response to these amendments, but we have heard today, as we have on previous days in Committee on this Bill, that an amendment or group of amendments is not relevant to the Bill. I am assuming that that is being said purely as the Government’s view, since presumably, through the changes that it does or does not make to a government Bill, it is for Parliament to decide what should or should not be in a Bill and is therefore relevant to it. So I would be grateful if the Government could confirm that when they say an amendment or group of amendments is “not relevant” to the Bill, they are simply expressing a view and accept that that is an issue that Parliament will have to determine.
Amendment 42 in this group would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependents from the right-to-rent immigration checks by landlords under the Immigration Act 2014. Amendment 50 would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependents from some provisions under the Immigration Act 2014, including the NHS surcharge and immigration checks on opening bank accounts and holding a driving licence. It would also exempt them from provisions in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which disallows a person from being employed if they do not have a valid immigration status. Amendment 71 would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals residing in the UK immediately before the commencement of the Act from a variety of immigration provisions, including checks on renting, bank accounts, driving licences and illegal working.
We understand the concerns that these amendments seek to address. The experiences of the Windrush generation, when lives were ruined and families torn apart, simply highlighted the failures of the hostile environment policy, particularly the culture that it led to in the Home Office that determined how the policy was applied, and as reflected in the terms of the Immigration Acts in 2014 and 2016. Against that background, it is understandable why there is concern among EEA citizens living in this country about the impact that changes to their status following our withdrawal from the EU could have on their position in relation to the application of the terms of the Immigration Acts.
The Government could have used the Bill to signal the end of the hostile environment policy in reality, not just in name, and in so doing convince EEA citizens that their concerns were without foundation. The Government have chosen not to do so, and consequently these amendments seek to do what the Government have failed to do, by giving EEA and Swiss citizens exemption from some of the more contentious parts of the Immigration Acts, including in particular those parts of the now rebranded hostile environment policy that were effectively farmed out to private individuals and private companies to implement, such as the checks in relation to the renting of property or opening of a bank account.
I hope that when we hear from the Government, as we are just about to, we will hear some hopeful response to the thrust of these amendments and that the Government are equally determined to address—and how they intend to do so—the concerns that the amendments have raised.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, in thanking noble Lords for speaking on these amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that I am going to argue not that they are irrelevant to the Bill but that that they are discriminatory, in their own ways. They would undermine the commitment to the British people to introduce a single global system. They would also weaken the immigration system by reducing the incentive to comply with the UK’s rules and laws.
On right-to-rent checks, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that immigration does not begin and end at our borders; it is more far-reaching than that. Under our new immigration system, everyone will be required to obtain their current correct immigration status, and we will clearly distinguish between those who are here lawfully and those who are not, regardless of their nationality. The measures in question concern migrants’ eligibility to rent accommodation, to work, and to access healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences. These measures have all been approved by Parliament. They contribute to our efforts to tackle illegal migration and those who seek to profit from immigration offences, while protecting taxpayer-funded services. Exempting from these measures EEA citizens and their family members, including those who do not have lawful immigration status, would undermine the integrity of the new immigration system1 which we have promised to deliver.
Amendment 42 specifically relates to the right-to-rent scheme, the legality of which has recently been upheld by the Court of Appeal—to echo the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. By disapplying these checks to all EEA citizens and their family members, this amendment would significantly compromise the right-to-rent civil penalty scheme. Under the current system, when a landlord is found to be letting to a disqualified person, the Home Office can issue a civil penalty of £3,000. A scheme that does not require evidence to be obtained for every tenant would render unworkable the Government’s ability to impose criminal and civil sanctions against unscrupulous landlords, as this exemption would serve as a blanket defence.
It is not clear how Amendments 42 or 71 would work in practice. Eligibility checks by landlords, employers and the NHS apply to everyone, including EEA and British citizens. Those carrying out the checks would not be able to ascertain who was part of the exempt cohort, as set out in these new clauses, and so would need to check everyone anyway. Alternatively, landlords and employers would have to take, at face value, a self-declaration of anyone who claims to be within this particular cohort. Amendment 42, for example, would make the right-to-rent scheme inoperable, as migrants who are unlawfully present or ineligible could self-declare as an EEA citizen, which could prevent the landlord from requesting further evidence of eligibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked who will check whether someone has UK immigration status. Particularly after the grace period, EEA citizens granted leave under the settlement scheme will use their digital status information to demonstrate to employers their right to work, to landlords their right to rent, and to other government departments and local authorities their right to access benefits and services—if they meet the relevant eligibility criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out the various documents that would be required. I am wondering whether he was questioning whether they were up to date, but I am sure he will come back to me on that if I have not made that clear.
For Amendment 50, I will focus on two aspects of the new clause. As noble Lords know, illegal working is a key driver of immigration offending. The ability to work without lawful status encourages people to take risks and to break our immigration laws, and leaves people vulnerable to exploitation—I refer to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—including being paid under the legal minimum wage. We are determined to continue to tackle illegal working, but this amendment would hinder our progress.
The proposal to prevent the application of provisions relating to healthcare charges to EEA citizens and their dependants would also have a significant negative impact. The immigration health surcharge is designed to help support the NHS, ensuring that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution to the wide range of health services available to them. By exempting such a large cohort, including those in the UK unlawfully, from being charged for accessing healthcare, this new clause would increase the financial pressure on the NHS considerably.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for expecting me to speak after her. I have two points. The first is that we seem to be playing a whack-a-mole game about whether the amendments are relevant to the Bill or discriminatory. Let us hit the other one on the head: the only reason these amendments are restricted to EEA and Swiss nationals is that the clerks would not allow broader amendments, because they would not be within the scope of the Bill. They are not discriminatory; they aim to get rid of the hostile environment for everyone. That is the first issue.
Secondly, on the specifics, I apologise to the Minister for not making it absolutely clear which group of people I was talking about when I was saying that the right-to-rent scheme did not work. I was talking about EEA and Swiss nationals, at the end of the transition period, and all those other nationals who can now use the e-passport gates to enter the United Kingdom for six months without a visa.
I demonstrated in my speech that these individuals could rent for up to 12 months without a landlord being in peril of a civil penalty or any other penalty. Indeed, if during that 12 months they produced another ticket, boarding pass or travel booking—or a copy of any of those—they could further extend their rental with the landlord, because they had produced evidence that they had arrived in the UK within the previous six months. Therefore, you can see that they could extend and extend their rental of a property, completely undermining the right-to-rent scheme. Only those nationals who can use the e-passport gates, who get six months’ visa-free travel, can circumvent the system in that way. Those other foreign nationals who require a visa cannot do that because the landlord has to check digitally with the Home Office. The Minister may say that eventually everything will be digital, but this will not be digital. There will not be a digital way to check the rights of people who have six months’ visa-free entry to the UK. It will still be done on the basis of passports, tickets, boarding passes and bookings. That is the point I am trying to make.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I see the noble Lord’s point. We need a further discussion or, indeed, an exchange of letters on this before Report. The first letter that I sent him clearly did not do the trick, so we will have further discussions on this.
I know exactly why noble Lords have tabled amendments that refer to EEA and Swiss nationals, because it puts them within the scope of the Bill. It does not make it any less discriminatory technically and legally, however, but I get his point.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, having a “non-Anglo-Saxon-sounding name”, to use the terminology used by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I am very conscious of the position. The Minister is, of course, quite right about why we had to confine the amendments to EAA and Swiss citizens, but it is disingenuous to say that we are being discriminatory. I said on the last group of amendments that we take opportunities where we can. We are very happy to invite the Government to apply the amendments to every nationality. Sadly, this is not open to us; as there are no Private Members’ Bills at the moment, our opportunities are pretty limited.
My noble friend Lord Paddick is not into whacking moles—because he is kind to animals, apart from anything else—but he may be very challenging to the Minister. I think it is wise to try to bottom out this issue after this stage.
Reference has been made to the black economy and how people who do not have status are driven into it and are vulnerable to exploitation. There is a big difference between our position and that of the Government. We see that as the outcome of the hostile environment provisions, not as a driver for them. I am intrigued by the points about forgeries that have been made, because it is the Government’s position that physical documents for the EU settled status scheme would open up the possibility of forgery, but we will come to that later.
We have done what we can, for the moment at any rate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 43. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 43
Baroness Ludford
“Data protection: immigration (EEA and Swiss nationals)
(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(5) This paragraph does not apply if the data subject is an EEA or Swiss national.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 43 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and to speak to other amendments in this group. Amendment 43 seeks to remove paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act in relation to EEA and Swiss nationals, and there is a reason why it is drafted only in relation to EAA and Swiss nationals.
These Benches and others have consistently opposed the suppression of data protection rights of migrants and free movers, which paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 imposes. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very powerful speech when moving an amendment on Report of the Data Protection Bill to remove said paragraph, which she said was “very far-reaching indeed” and even
“gives scope for quite considerable fishing expeditions.”—[Official Report, 13/12/17; col. 1588.]
One of the safeguards lacking from the Data Protection Act is the protection of Article 8, on data processing, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Because the Government refused to include the charter as retained EU law on exit, all we have is the European Convention on Human Rights, and once again there are rumblings about the ECHR. Yesterday, the headline in the Sunday Telegraph—I had to go out and buy it, which was rather galling, because it is behind a paywall—was:
“Boris Johnson set to opt out of human rights laws”
and that meant the convention. Here we go again. The Sunday Telegraph reported that Mr Dominic Cummings, no less, has previously attacked the European Court of Human Rights, and
“has warned that voters would expect the jurisdiction of European judges to end in the UK as part of the Brexit process”—
those pesky European judges. At least the newspaper had the grace to add that the ECHR and court were not part of the EU system, but there is that attempt to cross over and interlink the whole time. There is a connection between the UK’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Brexit process, in the sense that the Government are resisting giving the EU a formal undertaking to adhere to the convention. The Justice Secretary told a radio programme this weekend:
“The idea that we’re going to leave the convention is for the birds.”
The trouble is, one might have thought the same about the idea that the Government might renounce part of the withdrawal agreement—until they did, in the Bill being debated in the other place this afternoon. Indeed, in April 2016, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, said:
“The case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, which means Britain is subject to the European court, is not clear.”
She said the case was not clear and she, of course, was subsequently Prime Minister.
The deputy counsel to the Joint Committee on Human Rights advised that implementing the GDPR—the general data protection regulation, the EU’s data protection law—would arguably not be enough on its own to ensure a data adequacy finding for the UK if the Data Protection Bill fell short of standards required by Article 8 of the charter. You can double this if our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights is also at risk. The knock-on effect if the UK fails to get a data adequacy decision will mean that the prospects for law enforcement co-operation with the EU, or business transfers of data to EU and EEA countries, will be dim indeed. This point was made repeatedly in proceedings on the Data Protection Bill and, indeed, on various Brexit Bills in this House. The weakness of human rights safeguards makes the loss of data protection rights for migrants even more significant.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 72 complements my Amendment 71. I have spoken at length on these issues, so I will be brief. I also support Amendments 43 and 74, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for making the same point as I made at the start of my speech. It might seem somewhat disingenuous to suggest that these amendments are discriminatory by choice, when we were actually given the option of applying these only to limited numbers of people. Everyone who has spoken on this subject has expressed their desire to see them used to end the entire hostile environment.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the Data Protection Act is designed to fundamentally affect the way we use data to market, provide services and run our businesses. It also provides an obligation to warn people how their data will be gathered and used. My noble friend has already spoken about why the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to EEA or Swiss nationals. I support the arguments that have been advanced, particularly in the field of immigration.
Immigration is a fairly emotive issue and the use of data has caused serious problems in this country. There is an insatiable appetite to question migrants about their movements, but to put very little emphasis on what has been said. The Minister arranged a briefing session prior to Committee. I was not satisfied when I asked why some of the agencies can share the information collected but the police have been excluded from this arrangement. We need clarity on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide that today.
I do not dispute the procedures, which are to admit those who are eligible and to remove those who are not, but in any administrative system questions arise about priorities. The administration of the immigration system is no exception and we know that the points system is to be introduced at the tail end of this particular withdrawal Bill. The purpose of the data collection is not in dispute. The administration of the immigration system about the need to exclude the ineligible is no exception. It has always been the case that to exclude the ineligible means that checks have to be made to determine who is eligible and who is not. The immigration officers have similar powers to those of the police in this matter. There is always a concern about fishing raids unless they are done on intelligence. The problem is that the more intensive these checks are, the more delay and expense there is to those who are eligible. The matter of proper documentation has been a point of dispute and likely to cause serious problems. We have seen this in relation to Windrush, which is so often mentioned in debates on this subject. Even today, after 70 years, we have not resolved this issue. We may head towards the EU settled migrants with similar problems if we fail to give proper documentation backed up by proper data collection and the proper use of information collected.
There are ample safeguards on how the information on individuals is to be used. It is explicit that such information may not be used for immigration control or enforcement. All we want to ensure is that there is less adversarial contact with migrants. The police need adequate information in their duties as providers of public services, as is the case with public service organisations such as the NHS and schools.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I want to address my remarks to Amendments 43 and 74 in the names of my noble friends. As my noble friend Lady Ludford has so eloquently outlined, the exemption from data protection for migrants is unjustifiable. Indeed, as she said, the suggestion that we might even withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights only adds to the alarm that we should feel about that.
This issue goes back some way, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said. During the passage of the Data Protection Bill through Parliament, my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised this issue and sought to amend the Bill, sadly unsuccessfully at that time. She asked the Government to justify the exemption, but from my reading of Hansard, they either could not or would not. She also asked for reassurance from the Minister —and I believe it was the same Minister, the noble Baroness—but, sadly, she did not seem to get much. In fact, the Minister told the House that a decision on whether to apply the exemption could be exercised not only by the Home Office but by contractors who worked for the Home Office. She said that it would apply not only to migrants but to British citizens who supported the applications of migrants. The one piece of assurance that the Minister gave was that the exemption would be used in only a very small number of cases. She was quite explicit about that, so I hope that in her reply, the Minister will tell us how many times the exemption has been applied and, if not, whether she will undertake to write to us.
The truth is that the exemption gives huge discretion to the Home Office and its contractors to determine when access to data can be denied. The Government say that it would not be abused. That might be fine if we had not had the events of Windrush, which my noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to, and if we really felt that we could trust the Home Office and its contractors in this era of the hostile environment. However, in these circumstances it is very hard to do so. We have no way of knowing how the exemption is being applied, unless the Minister is able to tell us a bit more about that. Therefore, this is a matter of significant concern to us. As my noble friends have noted, we are seeking to remove the exemption from EEA nationals. I hope that we will not hear from the Minister that that is in some way discriminatory, as we want it removed from everybody.
Finally, and briefly, on Amendment 74, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said, we really want to hear an assurance from the Minister on this matter that will appear in Hansard.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As we know, the Data Protection Act 2018 provides for an exemption from some general data protection provisions where personal data is processed for the maintenance of effective immigration control. Of course, that allows an entity that processes data for immigration control purposes, such as the Home Office, to set aside a person’s data protection rights in a range of circumstances. It can also prevent people involved in immigration cases being able to request access to the data that the Home Office holds on them, and that could affect EEA or Swiss nationals applying for a new immigration status in the UK after Brexit.
As has been said, Amendment 43 would preclude the exemption from applying where the person in question is an EEA or Swiss national. EEA and Swiss nationals will become subject to this exemption as a result of our departure from the EU.
Amendment 72 would ensure that personal data belonging to an EEA or Swiss national resident in the UK before the Act that has been gathered through their use of public services cannot then be shared and used for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The relevant public services include primary and secondary education, and primary and secondary healthcare services, as well as where a person has contacted law enforcement to report a crime.
Amendment 74 would provide that a third party—for example, a landlord—given access to check a person’s settled status for specific purposes may not be allowed to use that access or information for any other purposes.
The issue is that there have been reports and evidence of data sharing as part of the Government’s rebranded hostile environment controls when people have, for example, access to education or report a crime to the police. In that latter regard, there appear to be examples of migrant women in particular suffering domestic abuse and being deterred from reporting a crime for fear of getting pulled into the immigration system. The comment has already been made about the independent Windrush Lessons Learned Review identifying a number of people from the Windrush generation who have been wrongly subject to proactive compliant environment sanctions, where the Home Office has shared data with other departments. Therefore, there is a lot of evidence that this data sharing goes on and that it has a detrimental effect on some individuals.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has found a 10% error rate in immigration status checks. Therefore, being unable to find out what immigration data the Home Office holds that led to an error—for the purposes of an appeal, for example—is of significance. The figure that I have been given—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that, since the beginning of 2019, 60% of requests for disclosure have been denied. I hope that in their response the Government will, at the very least, say how they intend to address the concerns raised by this group of amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the points that they have made on these amendments. Perhaps I may address Amendments 43 and 72 together, as they both concern data protection.
I appreciate the concerns to protect data subjects’ rights and to ensure that data sharing for immigration control or enforcement purposes does not prevent people living in this country accessing public services to which they are perfectly entitled. However, I cannot agree to these new clauses, because they would not be proportionate or constructive amendments to the Bill, or indeed address the concerns behind the amendments, and I shall say why.
They would restrict immigration authorities in performing their lawful duties in respect of immigration control, including being able to confirm a person’s immigration status, and they would be unable to prevent potential prejudice to the immigration system. Essentially, the new clauses would expressly prohibit the Home Office from using a necessary and lawful exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018, should it have cause to do so. The immigration exemption has been debated previously in this House and concerns raised have been addressed on those occasions.
The exemption applies to restrict specified data subjects’ rights where the maintenance of effective immigration control, or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control, are likely to be prejudiced. Rightly, it should apply to anyone who is subject to immigration control, including EEA and Swiss citizens. The new clause proposed in Amendment 43 would therefore constitute a difference in treatment on the grounds of nationality. We do not believe that that can be justified, as one purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there will be no difference in treatment between EEA citizens and those from the rest of the world when it comes to immigration policy.
Amendment 72 would have a similar effect in creating a difference in treatment based on nationality. The effect of the amendment in the clause would be to maintain the current position, so that one particular aspect of the compliant environment—data sharing—would not apply to those who now benefit from free movement. The amendment would have no effect as far as non-EEA citizens are concerned, and data collected in relation to them could still be used for immigration control or enforcement purposes, thereby treating them unequally under the law.
With regard to the immigration exemption dealt with in Amendment 43, it might help if I expand on the safeguards built into the Data Protection Act. The exemption can be applied only on a case-by-case basis and only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It cannot be, and is not, used to target any group of people, be they EEA citizens or otherwise. Nor does the application of the exemption set aside all data subjects’ rights; it sets aside only those listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. A further limitation is that the exemption can be applied only where compliance with the relevant rights will be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control. This “prejudice” test must be applied first, and, as a result, the situations in which the exemption can be used are significantly limited. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked me to give numbers. I cannot do so at this point, but I will see whether I can access them.
Furthermore, the exemption may be applied only so long as the prejudice can be seen to be evidenced and must be removed thereafter. It is not used to restrict access to personal data that would allow a person to further a claim; it is used only where we need to restrict access to sensitive data—for example, details of ongoing enforcement operations.
The exemption has been found to be lawful by the courts, and the ICO has issued robust guidance on how and when it may be used—guidance that the Home Office adheres to. Furthermore, the Home Office has robust safeguards and controls in place to ensure that data is handled securely, lawfully, ethically and in accordance with all relevant data protection regulations. I say again that the Home Office must at all times comply with the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 when data is shared.
Similar to Amendment 72, Amendment 74 seeks to limit the use of data. To reiterate the points that I made to noble Lords during the recess, I reassure them that the services that we provide to third parties for checking immigration status information about EU settlement status can be accessed and used only to check an individual’s immigration status and the rights associated with that status.
I will explain how users can view and prove their immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. Individuals can authenticate securely on the “view and prove your settled or pre-settled status” online service, where they can view their immigration status information and choose to share it with third parties for a variety of reasons. To take the example of right-to-work checks, the individual selects the option to share their right-to-work information and is given a time-limited code, which can be emailed or given to the employer. The employer uses the share code, along with the individual’s date of birth, to access just the information needed to confirm the individual’s eligibility to work, via the “view a job applicant’s right to work details” service on GOV.UK. The information provided to the employer can be previewed by the individual and contains only information relating to their right-to-work entitlements, along with the individual’s name and facial image for verification purposes and the expiry date of the leave, where appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who asked me to reiterate this point, is satisfied with my explanation.
For other services such as health, benefits and banking, users can share basic information about their status under the settlement scheme and the process works in exactly the same way. Checking organisations can access the information on a time-limited basis, via the “check someone’s settled or pre-settled status” service. The information provided in this service represents the minimum amount of data required for those checking organisations to perform their duties, and again includes the individual’s name, facial image, the leave they have been granted and the expiry date where applicable.
Third parties do not have access to the immigration database. An individual must choose to share their immigration status through the “view and prove” service before it can be viewed by third parties such as employers. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the police do not have access to the EU settlement scheme or the immigration database, but we are working with other parts of government to develop system checks to share immigration status for specific purposes such as health and benefits. For example, we will provide information to the National Health Service to support it in establishing whether an individual is entitled to access free healthcare.
I hope that noble Lords are now assured that we are committed to delivering immigration status services for the purposes of checking immigration status information only. These services have been designed to protect the personal information of those with EU settled status and have been built around GDPR principles, including that of data minimisation, ensuring that the information available to third parties is only what is absolutely necessary. I hope that, with those words, the noble Baroness is happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers but the first is, again, the disingenuous objection that the amendment focuses only on Swiss nationals and is therefore discriminatory on the grounds of nationality. I repeat something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said at least twice: it is up to the Government to extend it to all migrants if they wish.
Can the Minister tell us—she may have to write to me—whether any other EEA countries have exempted immigration data in their implementation of the general data protection regulation? Also, she said that the Data Protection Act was compliant with GDPR, but that remains to be seen. I think it is doubtful because that regulation, which I worked on as an MEP, provides no blanket exclusion of immigration data. The Minister did not respond on the prospect of a data adequacy decision from the European Commission. Winning this decision is of huge significance to our security and our businesses.
The combination of this part of the Data Protection Act, not retaining the charter and constant noises about the European convention is not designed to increase the confidence of the European Commission in granting a data adequacy decision. Not getting that will seriously prejudices the chances of the cross-border police co-operation that is vital to this country. The UK has made a huge contribution in that area in building up the EU justice and security measures, as was shown when Theresa May was Home Secretary about six years ago and we had the mass opt back in to all the vital measures. If we are unable to continue that, we will not be able to access information required to catch serious criminals and it will prejudice the security of British citizens. Also, if we do not get a data adequacy decision, it will be much more difficult for businesses to transfer data across the EEA—tech businesses are particularly reliant on data—using other, clunkier routes.
Already, a shadow has been cast on the ability to get a data adequacy assessment by the surveillance provisions in the Investigatory Powers Act and others; that has been the subject of several court cases in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. It is dangerous to undermine further the chances of a data adequacy decision. There are higher things than the Home Office’s wish to have constant access to this data.
Hope springs eternal. I thank the Minister for what she said on Amendment 74, which I will read carefully in Hansard. Unfortunately, she is not giving me any comfort on the other amendments, including Amendment 43, which I moved. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 44. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else from this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 44
Baroness Hamwee
“Late applications to EU Settlement Scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must, before 30 June 2021, publish a report setting out proposals for dealing with late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme and a motion to approve the report must be debated by both Houses of Parliament.(2) Until the report has been debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament, the EU Settlement Scheme must remain open for applications and the Secretary of State must extend the deadline for applications accordingly. (3) “The EU Settlement Scheme” means the scheme for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause will ensure that the EU Settlement Scheme will remain open until such time as the Minister has published proposals as to how to deal with late applications and that report has been approved by Parliament.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 44 and will speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford—Amendments 45 and 46—and to Amendments 52 and 96, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy.
This group of amendments brings us to the EU settled status scheme, which is dealing and has dealt with huge numbers of applications. I do not seek to deny that, but the task is huge to ensure that all EU citizens in the UK at a given date are able to remain when they have the right to do so. These amendments address aspects of the scheme. Later today we will continue with Amendment 49, in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates, which is about how to prove that status.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 44 on late applications, to which I have added my name, especially in the light of the pandemic, with people perhaps not being well for quite some time or not knowing that they need to register. I hope that there will be explicit provision in the Bill for late applications. I also support Amendment 96, which would require publication of reasonable grounds for late application. Again, that would help people to understand that there is the wherewithal, for those who have missed the deadline, for genuine reasons to be catered for.
I also support Amendment 46 in the light of the information we have received from members of the public who are concerned about their lack of sickness insurance. I would be grateful if my noble friend could address that issue and what deliberations there have been in the department that might address the issues raised in this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I was deterred from joining the crowded ranks for the Second Reading of the Bill. I support all the amendments in the group and I shall speak to Amendment 46, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, has asked me to reiterate his support for it, as he cannot be here today.
As we have heard, Amendment 46 concerns the retrospective requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance to have been taken out before settled status is granted throughout any period of self-sufficiency or as a student. This requirement has borne disproportionately hard on Roma people, with consequent unjust refusals of applications for naturalisation. This has been brought to my attention by the Roma Support Group, since it has particularly affected Roma women who have been looking after children full time, and thus are self-sufficient—neither employed nor self-employed—and who have applied for settled status using such documentation as they had, such as rental agreements or council tax bills, which were of course deemed insufficient. The requirement also prejudices the children of parents who have settled status but who did not acquire comprehensive sickness insurance themselves. The fees are usually out of their reach.
In answer to my Question HL6271 on this matter last July, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that having comprehensive sickness insurance
“has always been a requirement”
under EEA regulations, implying that students and self-sufficient people should have known about the requirement and ensured that they had the insurance. In fact, the CSI requirement results from the Home Office’s specific interpretation of EU regulations, which the European Commission considers to be in breach of EU law. I quote the European Commission’s own text:
“Under the Free Movement Directive, EU citizens who settle in another EU country but do not work there may be required to have sufficient resources and sickness insurance. The United Kingdom, however, does not consider entitlement to treatment by the UK public healthcare scheme (NHS) as sufficient. This breaches EU law.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, seems not to be with us, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I essentially support all the amendments in this group, but in particular it is crucial to think about the EU nationals resident here for maybe five years or more who expected to get settled status and then were given pre-settled status. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee so eloquently outlined in her opening remarks, 41% of those EU nationals seeking status of some sort have so far been given pre-settled status.
Maybe members of Her Majesty’s Government are always fully on top of every detail of every document they are ever required to look at, sign or agree. Whenever they get a piece of paper—assuming they even get a piece of paper and it is not some digital communication—they presumably know where they put it and they will know that on some future date, perhaps 23 July 2023, they will have to say, “Now I’m due to have my settled status. Oh Government, please, what do I do now?”
Every Minister might be able to do this, but I suspect that many of the 1.4 million people with pre-settled status might be more like the rest of us: they would know at the back of their minds that they needed to do something. It is a bit like doing a tax return, but at least with an annual self-assessment, one is reminded of it constantly—not just by emails from HMRC but by regular newspaper and television advertisements telling people the date by which they have to do their annual self-assessment tax return. People with pre-settled status are not going to have a single date: each of them will have a different point at which their five-year residence is up and needs to be turned into settled status. Amendment 45 is therefore absolutely crucial.
The Minister may argue that each individual should take responsibility for themselves—this may be the government view. I am sure that everyone who has sought settled status and has so far been told that they can have only pre-settled status is trying to take responsibility for themselves, but there may be all sorts of reasons why they do not necessarily remember the precise date by which they need to regularise things. It could be because of individual specific circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, mentioned, it could be because of the Covid crisis. There are all sorts of reasons people may not be able to deal with paperwork in the way they would normally be able to do. There may be a family bereavement—there could be a whole set of reasons why people have not thought through what paperwork is required.
There is, however, something to be said for the Government sending appropriate reminders. Surely one of the lessons of Windrush is that it is hugely important not only for individuals to have details of their own status but for the Government to have them too. If the Government are moving so much towards digitisation—so that all settled status documentation will be digital, unless the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates is passed—it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Government to have a mechanism for alerting people, six months out, to what they need to do to convert their status. If the Minister is minded to demonstrate Her Majesty’s Government’s compassionate and flexible approach—not something we very often see from the Home Office—that would be one way of going about it.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, requesting information about what would count as appropriate for a late application is most valuable. EU nationals who have used their rights of free movement in recent years would be fully aware of the requirement to seek settled status. But people who have lived in the United Kingdom for many years—who were maybe born here, to parents who are not British but who had the right to be here because of some other European citizenship—may not think to apply. Maybe they have lived all their lives in the United Kingdom and never stopped to realise that they did not have the rights of residency that settled status would give them, without which they may not even be permitted to be in this country. Unless the Government has an effective way of identifying a whole range of people eligible for settled status but who did not realise that they needed it, some flexibility is required. A tolerant country would surely allow these people to apply late when their status becomes clear.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support for all the amendments in this group. We have already had a strong, informative debate, so I will not take up very much of the time of your Lordships’ House.
I wish to address a couple of points. On Amendment 46, on comprehensive sickness insurance, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, powerfully and clearly set out the discriminatory effects of this surprising—possibly illegal—application of the rules. I am particularly concerned about the differential gender impact: invariably, it is women in caring situations who do not have their own income who will be affected by this.
I want to speak briefly to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This can be described only as a modest and reasonable request for transparency, democracy and scrutiny from the Government. It asks them to show what their plans are for looking after the group—that will inevitably, by definition, be made up of more vulnerable people—affected by the inability to apply for settled status within the deadline. Debating this amendment in the other place, as well as in your Lordships’ House, would be a chance for scrutiny, as well as constructive engagement, the pointing out of flaws and making suggestions for improvement. Will the Minister consider this? We can assume, I hope, that we will receive many assurances from the Government about how they intend to use the right to late applications. The Government clearly already have in mind how this is going to look, so surely it would not be that difficult to set it out on paper.
I want to briefly follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, said about technology. These days, what people have to do practically and how they manage their lives is increasingly digital. Maybe you have put a reminder to yourself in a digital calendar to do something. The deadline is there and you have done the right thing, but we all know that sometimes technology goes wrong: computers die and people lose passwords. The Government should be able to ensure a steady recording and reminder process. They do not perhaps always have a great record when it comes to IT projects, but this should not be very difficult or very costly. It would provide people with a security blanket, which is what all these amendments seek to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in her introduction, we are talking here about enabling people to exercise the rights to which they are entitled. Surely that is something that the Government want to make as easy and practical as possible.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments, and the later group on the grace period, are somewhat interrelated. However, as I will not be speaking to that group, I want to make all my remarks now.
Amendments 44, 45 and 46, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, with support from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on Amendment 46, are designed to address concerns about late applications and the need for the EU settlement scheme to remain open. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has fully explained, it would ensure that those granted pre-settled status get a reminder of the need to apply for full status and can, in the meantime, enjoy access to social assistance and housing. It would also rule out a retrospective requirement for private health insurance, which is what comprehensive sickness insurance means in this context, if a person with settled status applies for citizenship. I also fully support all the comments made by my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham.
A week ago, in a debate on applications for citizenship, the Minister told us that
“if people who were previously here as a student, or as self-sufficient, lack this”—
“this” being CSI—
“it does not mean that an application will be refused. The British Nationality Act allows for discretion to be applied around this requirement in the special circumstances of a particular case.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 579.]
I do not think we were told what the nature and criteria of the exercise of this discretion would be. Perhaps the Minister can tell us a bit more about this.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee. I intended to speak last week but I was not feeling too well, so I did not and did not come. I apologise for that, although there may be members of the Committee who think an apology is not appropriate and who were quite pleased about it. I declare something of an interest. I have a close in-law who, I am pleased to say, has just achieved settled status, although it took him a long time to bring himself to even apply for it. I support the amendments in this group and all the speeches that have been made.
This group should be put in its context. Among a lot of European citizens living in this country, large numbers of whom now have settled or pre-settled status, there remains an acute sense of concern. A lot of people are still fearful and worried; some are still scared. They are worried particularly about family relationships. Jobs are a different thing, in a sense. People are worried about their jobs but somebody who has got a good job and skills can go and get another one. A lot of people are still wondering what to do. How long might they stay here; will they stay here for the rest of their lives as many intended to do? People keep saying to me: “Yes, we have got settled status and that is fine, but how do we know that they won’t change what it means?” This week, one person said: “Look, it’s part of the withdrawal agreement and an international treaty, but we have a Government who do not seem to care too much about that.” Whether or not that is true is a different matter; it is the impression that is being given, so they are asking what it means.
How long will it be before people come along and say, “Yes, but you are European citizens and we will change the basis on which you live in, work in, or have the right to return to this country”? It may be in small ways; it may be in the detail of complicated legislation. So much of what the Committee is talking about is exactly that. I do not think that this is something that the Government can give reassurance on. They have tried, but they cannot guarantee what a future sovereign Parliament may allow—or force—a Government to do. We talk about the hostile environment: a lot of people still believe that the way in which they are being treated and regarded by many British residents of this country is undesirably different from what it was before the referendum.
That is all history; we know what is happening. It would, however, help if the Government, instead of concentrating on what they are now calling the need to be compliant, and pursuing that kind of thing, came out with some positive spin: propaganda or publicity about the value of European citizens and how important they are to this country. The end of this year—the end of the transition period—would be a good opportunity to do that, because that still gives six months, and it could be tied to a renewed government campaign to pick up the people who have not yet applied for settled status.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in her brilliant introduction to this group, suggested that the number of people who might be caught at the end of June by not having applied and not fitting into whatever guidance the Government finally come up with—they have given some indications but they are not very comprehensive and the guidance will not come out before we have dealt with this Bill—might be huge. It does not matter whether it is a huge number or not; it might be a few hundred or a few thousand, although it is likely to be rather more than that. We do not know how many there will be, but for those individuals it is no more or less important if it is 10,000, 20,000 or 200,000. Many people think that it is going to be rather more than a few thousand, given the comparison between the number of people who have applied so far and estimates of how many European citizens there are in this country.
These amendments are very important. I will not repeat all the reasons why people may not have applied for settled status by June next year, or indeed why they have been given pre-settled status, except that it is fairly clear that in the majority, probably, of pre-settled status cases it is simply that people have not been living here long enough. That is fair enough: they can continue to live here and will then qualify. Anecdotal evidence—of which there is a lot—suggests, however, that much of it is error by the Home Office, or the inability or failure to provide some detail, often a quite trivial detail. The anecdotal evidence comes from two groups of people. The first group is those who have appealed; the rate of success among them is, I understand, quite high. That suggests that many other people have not appealed and have said, “Well, I am only going to live here another two, three or four years”, or, “Well, we will get it all sorted out in three or four years’ time”. They are the sort of people who will get caught by the system. We have no idea how many of them there are; we know, however, that in relation to the 40% or so who have status—the people the Government are so proud about—it is temporary status.
Why should the Government make an effort to tell people about the scheme? My noble friends went through a lot of reasons. One of them—a perfectly legitimate and acceptable reason—is that people change their minds. People who think that they will be here only another two or three years may experience a change in their circumstances. They might get married, have children, get a new job; they might do all sorts of things. When their circumstances change, they may just change their mind and decide that they would like to stay. They will then, however, have to reapply. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that when, in due course, people who have been turned down for settled status but have pre-settled status apply for settled status, the Home Office will not revisit their original application, find errors in it and use that as an excuse for not giving them settled status? That is a fundamental point. Will the Minister give that assurance?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, we welcome the work that has been done on the EU settlement scheme so far, and the number of people who have been able to access it. We hope that the scheme proves successful, but that remains to be seen.
I will speak to Amendments 52 and 96, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. Amendment 52 seeks clarity on the rights of EU citizens who have the right to apply for settled status but have not yet done so. What are their rights in the “grace period” between the end of the transition period and the deadline for applications?
The Government have now published a draft of the citizens’ rights (application deadline and temporary protection) (EU exit) regulations 2020—we might call it the grace period SI—during this stage of the Bill, which is helpful. This SI, made under Section 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, would specify 30 June 2021 as the application deadline and provide that certain provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016—the regulations that provide for free movement rights—will continue to apply during the grace period for relevant persons, despite the revocation of those regulations under this Bill.
In essence, the government factsheet tells us that the SI will temporarily “protect the existing rights” of EU nationals who are eligible for the settlement scheme during the grace period. Regulations 5 to 12 of the SI specify which provisions will continue to apply. Can the Government confirm to the House that the full existing rights of EU citizens will be carried into the grace period by this SI and there will be no substantive changes or loss of rights? We welcome the clarification that the person’s existing rights continue during the entirety of the processing of their application—even where, for example, they apply late in June and the deadline passes while their application is being considered.
We welcome the Government’s aims in the SI to provide legal protection to these rights. However, questions remain over how they will be protected in practical terms. If an EU national tries to open a bank account, rent a home or enrol their child in school during that period, what are the Government doing to ensure that their continuing rights are widely understood—because people are generally not aware that they have that right and there could be a difficulty?
Regulation 13 of the SI states:
“Where any question arises as to whether a person is or was lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at a particular point in time … it is for the individual in question to prove that they were”.
That is to say that they must prove that they were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. Can the Government say in which situations they expect that people will have to prove their ongoing status and how they envisage people will do this? What documentation might they need, for example? Crucially—since one can see there might be some difficulty in being able to prove it—what support will there be for a person who runs into this kind of difficulty and who may well, in fact, be perfectly lawfully resident in the United Kingdom?
I am sure there will be many other questions that arise in relation to the draft SI, but I will move on to Amendment 96, which seeks more information on late applications to the settlement scheme. The Government have repeatedly said there will be “reasonable grounds” on which a late application will be accepted, but of course I am sure we would all acknowledge that the word “reasonable” is subjective. Different people will have different interpretations of what is reasonable. When can we expect full guidance on late applications? If a person was completely unaware that they had to apply, will that count as reasonable grounds? Would this also apply to a person who just made a mistake and missed a deadline? At one time or another, most of us have made such a mistake.
However, our main question is on the immigration status of people who miss the deadline. An NHS doctor, for example, misses the deadline but continues to go to work. If they are then granted status in, say, 2022, they will—presumably—have been officially unlawfully resident in the UK for a number of months. Will they be considered to have been working illegally and, if so, will there be consequences for that? What status will they be deemed to have had between the June 2021 deadline and the granting of status in 2022?
Another example might be an elderly person who missed the scheme entirely because they are not digitally literate—something I can empathise with—and who continues to use healthcare services before any application is organised on their behalf. Will they be liable for high NHS fees because they did not know that their right to use those services lawfully had lapsed?
I hope the Government will be able to provide answers to the questions that I and other noble Lords have raised—either in their response or subsequently—and, not least, to the points on CSI made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the concerns expressed over the potential implications for the future of the high percentage of those who have been given pre-settled status.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and rightly probed me on some of the detail of what the Government are intending to do across all the various issues that are raised in these amendments. I am pleased to say that, on most points, I think I will be able to reassure noble Lords on the issues they raise.
On Amendments 44 and 96, both concern how the Government will deal with late applications to the EU settlement scheme. Both are incredibly well-intentioned, as they concern how we ensure that those eligible for the scheme obtain status under it. There is plenty of time for those EEA citizens and their family members resident here by the end of the transition period to apply for status under the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of 30 June 2021. Furthermore, in line with the citizens’ rights agreement, they will be able to apply after the deadline where they have reasonable grounds for missing it.
I think noble Lords will find that, throughout my response, I will outline how the Government intend to take a very pragmatic approach to all these issues. During the Second Reading debate, I confirmed that, early in 2021, the Government will publish guidance on what constitutes missing the deadline. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I say that the timescale is appropriate because, for the time being, our priority has been to encourage all those who are eligible to apply to the scheme to do so before the deadline. We do not want to risk undermining that effort by inadvertently encouraging people to put off making the application.
Amendment 44 would cause confusion over the deadline for a scheme which has been designed to be simple and straightforward. We must also deliver on our promise to the people to end free movement and, from 2021, introduce the new global points-based immigration system. However, as I said earlier, the EU settlement scheme does not close on 30 June 2021. It will continue to operate thereafter for applications by people with pre-settled status applying for settled status and by those who are joining family members in the UK as well as by those with reasonable grounds for applying after the 30 June 2021 deadline. A report setting out proposals for dealing with late applications—as sought by Amendment 44—is not needed because we have been clear that we will take a pragmatic and flexible approach to late applications and will be publishing that guidance early next year.
Amendment 96, concerning such guidance, is also unnecessary. Our guidance on reasonable grounds for applying after the deadline will be indicative and not exhaustive. I think noble Lords will agree that this is the right approach; we will consider all cases in light of their individual circumstances. A person with reasonable grounds for missing the deadline who subsequently applies for and obtains status under the scheme will enjoy the same rights from the time they are granted status as someone who applied to the scheme before the deadline.
The withdrawal agreement obliges us to accept late applications indefinitely where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. This and other rights under the agreements now have direct effect in law via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, so this commitment is already effectively enshrined in primary legislation agreed by Parliament.
The Government are also doing all they can to raise awareness of the scheme and ensure support is available. In March, we announced a further £8 million of funding, in addition to £9 million last year, for organisations across the UK to help vulnerable people to apply. Plans for a further burst of national advertising are under way because we are determined that no one will be left behind. My noble friend Lady Altmann specifically asked about this point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in a more indirect way.
I will take a moment to outline what we are going to do between now and next year. With less than a year to go until the deadline, we will continue to update our communications approach. We will have further and future national advertising, which will have adjusted messaging and emphasis to ensure that it speaks to the remaining audiences still to apply.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will have to read what the Minister has said when I pore over Hansard, but I do not think that I am reassured in relation to the grace period SI. This SI refers to how the provisions of the EEA regulations 2016 continue to have effect despite the revocation of those regulations by this Bill—but it is the EEA regulations, unlike Appendix EU for the settlement scheme, which require CSI.
In accordance with the promise made by the then Home Secretary Theresa May in 2017, CSI would not be required as part of a settlement scheme application, but the grace period SI, by referring to the EEA regulations, as opposed to the rules under Appendix EU, that is EU settlement scheme rules, appears to be reintroducing the requirement for CSI. This is complicated and perhaps I have not properly understood it, and I will have to pore over what the Minister says.
Representatives of the 3 million were told by an official at the end of last week that there appeared to be a mistake, although this is only hearsay—perhaps this official did not understand any more than I did—but immigration lawyers who are trying to advise EU citizens on this think there is a problem. Referring to the EEA regulations incorporates a requirement for CSI—that is to say private health insurance—which has not been required during the settlement scheme application to date, but suddenly, in the grace period, it will be. Citizenship will also be required, but there is a discretion for that. Unlike for citizenship, there does not even appear to be a discretion to exempt it for settled status.
Clearly, the Minister, who is shaking her head at me, thinks I have continued to misunderstand this, but I remain less than reassured, and I hope I will manage to get it clearer in my own head. Perhaps more importantly, people whose profession it is to understand the EEA regulations and the settlement scheme, as opposed to a mere legislator, might be reassured by the Minister’s words, and I will defer to her.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I hope the noble Baroness takes a look at Hansard. These are not the easiest things that we are discussing, but I understand the grace period SI does not affect the criteria for the EUSS status. The SI is protecting the EEA rights of those who have them at the end of the transition period. I know we will speak further, and I know that she will read Hansard, but I hope in reiterating that point again, she will feel happy that the amendment is withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I thank noble Lords. I, too, will supply myself with some hot towels and read through all that. We have another opportunity to discuss the grace period on Amendment 80, but I, like my noble friend, feel less than reassured. The issue is whether, without having sickness insurance, one has the relevant rights. The arguments seem to have moved over the past few months as to whether having CSI is necessary to exercise the rights or, in other words, whether you have been the exercising right to free movement or the treaty rights.
Some very pertinent points and questions have been posed during this debate. I wish my noble friend Lady Smith had not reminded me about tax returns and the amount of filing I have to do, but she was right and explained my reasoning on Amendment 45 better than I did. There has been a focus on individuals throughout this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves that it is not about the numbers of people. What matters matters to 100% of each individual.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 48. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 48
“Leave to enter: family unity and claims for asylum
(1) For at least such time as a relevant agreement has not been concluded and implemented, a person to whom this section applies shall be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) is on the territory of any relevant Member State; and(b) makes an application for leave to enter for the purpose of making a claim for asylum; and(c) would, had that person made an application for international protection in that Member State, have been eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 by reason of a relevant provision if the United Kingdom remained a party to that Regulation.(3) An application for leave to enter under subsection (2)(c) shall be made in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe save that—(a) there shall be no fee for the making of such an application and no requirements may be prescribed that are unreasonable having regard to the purposes of this section and the circumstances of persons to whom it applies;(b) in relation to such applications, the Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that applicants receive a decision regarding their application no later than two months from the date of submission of the application.(4) A claim for asylum made under subsection (2)(b) must remain pending throughout such time as no decision has been made on it or during which an appeal could be brought within such time as may be prescribed for the bringing of any appeal against a decision made on a claim or during which any such appeal remains pending for the purposes of section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeal); and a claim for asylum remains one on which no decision has been made during such time as the claim has been made to the Secretary of State and has not been granted, refused, abandoned or withdrawn. (5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a strategy for ensuring that unaccompanied children on the territory of a relevant Member State continue to be relocated to the United Kingdom, if it is in the child's best interests.(6) For the purposes of this section—“applicant” means a person who makes an application for leave to enter under this section;“claim for asylum” means a claim for leave to enter or remain as a refugee or as a person eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection;“Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013” means Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council including the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast);“relevant agreement” means an agreement negotiated by a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the United Kingdom, with the European Union in accordance with which there is provision for the transfer of a person who has made an application for asylum in a Member State of the European Union to the United Kingdom and that provision is no less extensive than Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 insofar as that regulation operated to enable the transfer of a person to join a child, sibling, parent or other family member or relative in the United Kingdom before exit day;“relevant Member State” means a Member State for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013;“relevant provision” means any of the following articles of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013—(a) Article 8,(b) Article 9,(c) Article 10,(d) Article 16,(e) Article 17.”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 48, which has cross-party support in this House and the House of Commons, is concerned with the rights of child refugees in Europe. We are all aware that the refugee crisis is one of the biggest challenges facing us, both in Europe and the whole world. We have a responsibility, along with other countries, to meet that challenge.
We have all been shocked by the filming and newsreels of the fires in the Moria camp. I visited the Moria camp about a year and a half ago; I was shocked then at the overcrowding and the appalling conditions in which people were living, or existing, particularly the children. I visited the Calais area, which had equally appalling conditions. I believe that children in Moria, Calais and in other camps are not safe. It is no good saying that these children are safe in Europe. They are not safe in Europe, and we have a responsibility to help.
Even before the Moria fire, the Greek Government had for months been asking other countries to help them and take a fair responsibility for unaccompanied children. Some countries stepped forward: Germany, Portugal, France, Luxembourg, Finland and even non-EU Switzerland said they would take children but, as far as I am aware, the United Kingdom did nothing.
Since the tragedy in Moria, a number of countries have taken emergency action to help the children specifically impacted by the fire. The Greek Government moved some of them off Moria on to the mainland, but they are still in difficult circumstances. As I understand it, we are talking about 407 unaccompanied children. Ten countries have stepped forward: Germany, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Croatia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Switzerland have all said they will take some of the unaccompanied children from the camps, but still the United Kingdom has not responded.
In the grand scheme of things, the United Kingdom receives far fewer asylum claims by adults and children than many other EU countries. This is not a matter of competition or using statistics, but Germany, France, Greece and Spain have each taken more than the UK. In relation to their population size, Sweden and Belgium are also doing better than we are. The idea that we are doing our share frankly does not pass the test of the numbers that I have quoted.
I believe that there are three legal routes to safety for child refugees. The first is the vulnerable person resettlement scheme. That is of course a step away from the scope of the Bill, but it is mainly for refugees from Bekaa, Jordan and Lebanon. It is a worthwhile scheme and I applaud the Government on it, but it would be useful to know from the Minister what the Government’s intentions are after 2020, as they have said that it has been agreed until only 2020. Of course it is illogical that a child in a camp in, say, Jordan, should be able to reach the UK in contrast to a child from Greece or the Calais area who apparently is not welcome here. That is why the amendment is so important in providing a safe and legal route.
There are two specific legal routes from Europe. There is Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 for children in Europe who do not have relatives here, which was capped by the Government at 480. I have argued with the Minister on a number of occasions; the Government say that there are not enough local authorities to take more children in foster homes but, frankly, I am aware of quite a large number of local authorities that are willing to take children who do not have family here and to provide foster places, and indeed I think a louder call for local authorities to respond would produce even more places than the 1,600 or so with safe passage that the NGO working on this has been able to cover.
Then there is the Dublin agreement—Dublin III, as we call it—an EU treaty under which children in an EU country can apply to join relatives in another EU country. This is probably the key point in the Bill because it is about family reunion, which is surely a fundamental right. Children should be able to join relatives in this country where those relatives have accommodation for them. This is something that we have debated before; indeed, we even passed an amendment to the 2017 Bill to include Dublin III—that is, that the UK Government in negotiating with the EU should make sure that the provisions of the Dublin treaty regarding family reunion would continue even after we left the EU. That was voted by this House into the 2017-19 Bill and was eventually accepted by the House of Commons. It was then removed from the statute book by the 2019 Act.
I had meetings with Ministers and argued with them. I even had a meeting with the then Immigration Minister, now the Northern Ireland Secretary, who asked at one point in a discussion that we had, “Do you not trust me?” Of course I trusted him—well, things have changed since then, but that is in a different context. We were given assurances that the Government would protect the rights of Dublin III children, but when the Government eventually published their response it fell very short far short of the protection necessary. We took legal advice that said the response was a much weaker one than the one under the Dublin treaty. I am disappointed that we are at the point where we do not know what is going to happen in future.
I understand that, for reasons that are not clear to me, Brussels says that in negotiation with the UK it has no mandate from the 27 countries to negotiate on the Dublin III treaty and that that will have to be done on a bilateral basis—that is, in 27 separate negotiations. That is of course a recipe for a long drawn-out process. I do not know why that is the case because even our Government would be keen for there to be one separate negotiation, although, as I said earlier, I would like it to be on something more substantive than the Government’s proposals that were put forward recently.
If we have to leave the EU without a deal—I am bound to say that that looks increasingly likely—or with a very limited deal, where does that leave the Dublin III children? The amendment that we originally passed in 2017, which the Government said they would accept the spirit of while deleting it in the 2019 Act, was of course based on the premise that we would find some good basis for negotiating our continued relationship with the EU. That seems less likely now than ever, which is why Amendment 48 is surely the best way forward and is so important.
Let me restate: I believe that the UK, along with other European countries, share responsibility for refugees. It should be a wide international responsibility. However, I have never said we should take all the children; I have said only that we should take our share. If this issue is explained to the people of this country—it has already been explained, but we will go on explaining it—we will find that most people in Britain, though not all, are sympathetic to the idea that we should take child refugees. This is something I believe commands public support. Those of us who have been campaigning for child refugees have always said, as I have certainly said, that it is public support that we need—community groups, faith groups, or whatever group in the public.
We know that providing safe routes is the best way of defeating vicious people traffickers. That is why the two legal paths to safety, plus the scheme from the region, are the right way forward. This amendment will consolidate that and give children in Europe safety in this country. We are a humanitarian country. We can demonstrate this best by accepting this amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
After the masterly explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, there is little to add. However, I want to have a go. I said at the start of this Committee that I should declare an interest: I am a trustee of the Refugee Council.
First, I make a general point about the hysteria about invasions across the channel. There have been 4,000 people who came this year—why? It is not, pace the Prime Minister, because they are stupid. It is because there is no open legal operational alternative for them. This means that we are effectively accomplices of the criminals who stuff them into dangerous dinghies and lethal lorries. It is not the fault of the French, pace the Daily Express; there is no legal or moral obligation on the French to say to people who would like to seek asylum in the United Kingdom that they must instead seek asylum in France. Let us keep it all in perspective; the French and the Germans received more than three times as many applications for asylum last year as we did. The Greeks received twice as many. Let us try to take out of the debate some of the emotion and hysteria that Mr Farage is so keen to stoke up.
I have three points on unaccompanied children. First, it is a shame that despite all the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have still not cracked the problem. The overwhelming number of these cases are about family reunion. The humanitarian case for family reunion is overwhelming. The evidence I see at the Refugee Council suggests that British public opinion thinks so too. British public opinion would like us to crack this problem. The British people are not inhumane.
Secondly, the problem is about to get worse. Dublin III will not apply after 1 January and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was saying, it is clear that the Frost-Barnier negotiation will not produce the replacements for Dublin that our Government were required by this House to seek. Section 37 of the withdrawal Act abolished that requirement to seek it. Their own proposal was inadequate as a way of matching what the House of Lords had asked for before our request was knocked out of the Act. It was more about a requirement on the 27 to accept failed asylum seekers on return than about making it possible for families to be reunited in this country. As I understand it, that proposal is dead.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register as receiving support from the RAMP project on immigration policy and as a trustee of Reset. It is a real honour to follow the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, with whose comments I fully agree, particularly the final points from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on pull and push factors.
In our churches, we tell a story about a man who was attacked by robbers on the road. As he lay wounded, people passed him and hurried on their way. Who helped him? It was not those from his own community. Instead, a stranger saw the man’s plight, chose to stop, carried him to safety and took care of his needs. This man, Jesus observed, was truly a good neighbour. In the light of this, who is our neighbour in a global age?
Throughout its history, the people of this country have faced choices about whether to offer sanctuary to those fleeing violence and persecution. We are rightly proud of the occasions when we have done so. The legacy of the Kindertransport in the Second World War, which saved Jewish children’s lives, and about which many of us have heard our noble friend Lord Dubs speak so movingly on occasions, still motivates many of us to support this cause.
Sadly, there is another history too, in which we in this nation have chosen a different path: of rejecting those in need and shutting our eyes to the plight of those afflicted by conflict and persecution, and of the racist exclusion of those who have come here to rebuild their lives. In a world of conflict, disaster and persecution, we face this choice again and again. Will we offer welcome or will we turn away? Which path will we take as a nation? For those least able to help themselves—unaccompanied children—what will we choose to do?
This week, as we have heard of and seen reports on the fire at the Moria camp in Greece, we are pressed to make a choice whether to help or to stand by, as both the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, have said. In that camp, there were thousands of children, including more than 407 unaccompanied minors, some of whom are reported as having family members in the UK but are still waiting to be transferred here, months after being accepted for family reunion under the Dublin III law. In response to this debate, I hope that the Minister will address what is being done for them. Those of us who support this amendment are concerned that while Germany, France and other countries have already offered assistance to those affected by this fire, the UK appears yet to have done so. I am worried that in their actions this week, the Government have already chosen between the two paths with which we are faced.
Christians often remind themselves of these words of Jesus:
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
We are called to treat every child—and every person fleeing persecution and war, for it is within our power to help—with dignity and hospitality, as if they were the son of God himself. Many of us will share a conviction, whatever values or beliefs it is based on, that human life is precious, and that each person carries a unique, incalculable value. How do we choose to recognise that in the question before us of children separated from their families?
I acknowledge the argument made on previous occasions that primary legislation is not necessary to facilitate family reunion. I do not doubt the sincerity of the reassurances that I and others have received repeatedly over recent months from Ministers that they take our humanitarian obligations seriously. Yet I note with regret that the UK’s refugee resettlement scheme appears still to be paused while other countries have restarted theirs. I also note that the Dublin arrangements will soon lapse and that, in any case, there are precious few safe and legal routes for those seeking sanctuary to arrive here.
In the light of that, I must support this amendment, that we might bind ourselves to making the choice to offer sanctuary to those in need of it. I encourage everyone in this House to support it too.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is quite difficult to follow such eloquent speeches and I will not attempt to emulate them. However, I can give the House some examples of why I think that they are correct in what they say about public opinion. First, I must declare my interest, as in the register, as being a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
Having been the local MP, I know that the London of Borough of Hillingdon received and looked after a large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My fellow MPs for the area, John McDonnell and Nick Hurd—that is, from all sides of the political spectrum—and we worked hard because we knew that we welcomed these children. However, we had to make the point, and we came together in doing so, that the then Labour had to provide ample resources so that the public—our constituents—did not feel that they were being disadvantaged in any way and that services would suffer from the long-term financial commitment of looking after these children. I have to say that we were very successful.
When it is explained that this is something that we should do for unaccompanied children, I think that public opinion is there. Without venturing into the right reverend Prelate’s area of expertise, I can give a personal example of where I found the most unlikely good Samaritan. A member of my Conservative association was—shall we say?—very forthright on the immigration policies at that time and was not a fan of lots of people coming in, as he saw it, illegally, legally or whatever, to the point where sometimes I really winced when I heard him speak. However, there was a knock at my window late one night—I lived, and still do live, in the heart of my constituency—and it was this gentleman, who said, “John, you’ve got to do something.” Apparently, he had had a bad road accident and the only person who had come to his aid as he was lying on the road was a young Kosovan, who was going to be deported. When somebody realises that these are real people, suddenly any antipathy disappears.
This country has a great tradition of looking after people, and I shall quote an example that I am aware of but which is probably little known. During the First World War, a lot of Serbian children were looked after in Scotland as they were escaping the horrors of the war. Many settled here; some went back to Serbia after the war. Not only was it right for us to do that but it gave them a great sense of the British way of life. I know from reading an excellent book how grateful they were for what happened at that time.
Therefore, I just say to my noble friend that I think we should be less cautious in worrying about what some of the perhaps more right-wing side of the media say about this. When children come to this country unaccompanied, they do not come for a pull factor; they do so because where they come from is such a hell. Nobody would willingly put themselves at such risk to come from those countries. I am not sure about some of the wording in the amendment—although I am not an expert on it—but I think that we should take this issue very seriously at this particular time.
A couple of years ago, I was at the main railway station in Serbia and saw the flow of migrants, although by that time it was not as large as it had been. Anyone who sees, close to, families who are desperate and leaving war-torn countries such as Syria and Iraq cannot be anything other than moved. I support the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this list to fulfil a promise to certain campaigners who had been lobbying me. I have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I have nothing further to add except to say that I support everything they said with my heart and mind.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. It is quite shocking to hear from Safe Passage that in their negotiating proposals the Government seek to replace children’s rights under Dublin III with a discretionary provision that provides vulnerable children with neither the certainty nor security they sorely need. That contrasts with the mandatory approach taken to returning children to other EU countries—or EU countries, now—which rather smacks of double standards.
Surely it is hypocritical to wring one’s hands over children and young people risking their lives to cross the channel in tiny boats while increasing the likelihood of that happening in future by further narrowing clear and firm legal routes open to them, as has already been stated. On that, can the Minister say when the Government plan to start the resettlement programme, which has already been mentioned? She recently told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that the Government will do so
“as soon as it is practical and safe to do so.”—[Official Report, 3/9/20; col. 519.]
The Government have already deemed it “practical and safe” to restart some deportation flights, so why not resettlement flights? I understand that nearly half the countries in the resettlement programme restarted their schemes weeks ago. As Stephen Hale, chief executive of Refugee Action, has said:
“It is baffling that the UK government has arranged travel corridors for summer holidays on the one hand but prevented resettlement flights taking place on the other. Flights that would offer a literal lifeline to some of the most vulnerable refugees in the world.”
He underlined that it is “a matter of urgency.”
Urgent too, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, is action to help those children whose lives have been turned upside down yet again by the dreadful fire at the Moria camp in Lesbos. We have heard that a number of other countries have offered to take some of these children but that this country has not stepped in—or, I should say, stepped up—to its responsibilities. Can the Minister explain why? Why have we not yet done what we should be doing here?
Returning to the Bill itself, Coram has bemoaned the lack of attention given to children generally in the Government’s immigration proposals. Have the Government even undertaken a child rights or best interests assessment of what they are proposing? I have not seen one. Can we perhaps have one before Report? Here is an opportunity to give children’s organisations such as Coram some reassurance by accepting my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I sometimes wonder whether the Government—particularly those within No. 10, holding office or otherwise—have any sense of shame whatever. There is really no other way to describe their dilatory approach to all this than shameful. Perhaps nothing is unbelievable these days, but it is almost unbelievable that—dealing with children in the most vulnerable situation, who have been through hell and are psychologically and sometimes physically in a very bad way and in need of love, affection, care and concern—there is a total failure to ensure that the provisions of the Dublin agreement, such as they were, have been carried forward and a satisfactory replacement negotiated with the European Union.
I know that it is a controversial thing to say in this House, but I have reached a point at which I feel shame for my nation. Do we care about children, or indeed adults, who are in desperate need or do we not? Why are we not busting a gut, with all our ingenuity and skills, to find ways in which people can, in their desperation, make safe journeys rather than being thrown into the hands of smugglers or acute dangers in totally inadequate vessels? This issue goes to the kernel of what kind of nation we want to be and appear to the world to have become.
All I can say is that my admiration for my noble friend Lord Dubs is unbridled. The way he has been, in effect, repeatedly let down by government is a sad and sorry story. I am sorry if it appears that I am just moralising, but this is crucial to where our sense of care, concern and responsibility as a nation is. Therefore, this amendment, whatever it can do, is desperately needed. I cannot say how sorry and sad I am that we have reached this predicament.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hesitate to speak in this debate having heard the eloquent and dedicated contribution of my noble friend Lord Dubs, and from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, about the humanitarian imperative to act now in this terrible crisis that we are seeing unfold, both in Greece and France, of unaccompanied children and families. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we see proposals from the Government that appear to prepare to weaken our commitment to reuniting unaccompanied children with their families—at a time that strikes at the heart of what we believe are British values of caring and standing up for those who are less well off than us and taking our share and burden in helping those in greatest need.
Amendment 48, which I support, would provide the basis on which this country could have rules that offered a safe route for children to join their family members in the UK. Having such clear rules offers a path forward. The Minister has to tell the Committee why the Government find themselves in a position in which the EU has rejected the proposals that they put forward in the negotiations on the basis that they were not part of the mandate. They were never part of the mandate. It looks unlikely that we will be able to negotiate bilateral agreements with the other member states. If the EU has overall competence for this matter, that route will be closed off for ever.
On 3 September, a Home Office official appearing before the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee confirmed that at the end of December 2020 the UK will not be bound by the Dublin arrangements. So we have no route through negotiations; we think that bilateral arrangements are unlikely, and we know we will not have Dublin III, according to the Government. Can the Minister tell the Committee, if she is going to reject amendment, what plans the Government have to ensure that we have a mechanism in place at the end of the transition period to provide a replacement for Dublin III? Can she explain how unaccompanied children in desperate need of clarity and certainty will receive speedy action so that they can be reunited with their families? Will she detail how, if she will not accept the amendment, she intends to insert rights into the Bill that protect children with relatives in the UK who are willing to take responsibility for those children?
The Government are being offered a clear and simple way forward to meet these obligations by the brilliant work of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I urge the Minister to accept the principles enshrined in the amendment. I hope she will respond positively to all the comments that have been made thus far in this very important debate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with the Children’s Society saying that child refugees worldwide now number some 13 million, surely the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was right to say that this is one of the gravest crises facing the world. The Minister will no doubt remind the Committee what the Government have done. They have done much to try to help children caught up in this terrible spiral of violence—I do not think that anyone in the Committee would not want to respond in some way to try to deal with many of the issues raised during the debate so far. However, she will understand from the cri de coeur she has heard from noble Lords across the Committee that just because we have helped some, that is not a reason not to try to help others as well. Just because we cannot solve the problems of everyone is not a reason not to try to solve the problems of anyone.
Given his own personal story, there is no one better equipped or able than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to put the case. I also wholeheartedly associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said about the sanctity of every human life and our particular duty to the most vulnerable. I make common cause with all those who have spoken in the debate so far.
Amendment 48 takes us back to the well-worn road to Dublin, although, as the Irish would say, if you wanted to get to Dublin you wouldn’t start from here. Over the months, the Minister has had to respond to my repeated questions, along with those of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords, about the Dublin regulations—those European Union protocols concerning the identification and transfer of people, especially unaccompanied children who have submitted a claim for asylum from one member state to another where the applicant has family. Of course, the issue of unaccompanied children was also the subject of the Dubs amendment, which was referred to by the noble Lord earlier in the debate. That amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House and I was very happy to be one of the signatories to it.
Amendment 48 has become necessary because Ministers have yet to create new arrangements post December 2020, when the transitional arrangements elapse. The amendment would provide some legal framework to enable those who would have been able to come here under the Dublin regulations to enter the UK and make their asylum claim.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is talking to an amendment that comes up later.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have my name to this amendment on behalf of our Benches. The subject matter of this amendment, and that of later Amendment 62, are very close. Amendment 62 is about family reunion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, in particular, referred to that. It will not escape the Committee that there is a particularly persuasive factor to Amendment 48, and that it is led by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose track record in leading the House on issues relating to refugees, particularly child refugees, is second to none.
I do not want to repeat points that have been made about push and pull factors, or about children’s experiences. I am very clear about the moral issues that have been referred to. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has rightly reminded the House, the Government has not done nothing. It will, however, be hearing the call to do more.
I want to make some technical points. Ministers tell us they are working hard—I do not mean to impugn anything there—to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after in the best possible way after we leave the Dublin regulations. As we have heard, they have referred to the draft negotiating document, the draft working text for an agreement between the EU and the UK on the transfer of these children, but there are two problems. First, there is nothing firm about that text: member states “may” make a request to transfer a child, and the UK “may” make a request to member states. Secondly, the EU has no mandate to negotiate on behalf of member states on this. To deal with the latter first, the Security and Justice Sub-Committee of the House’s Select Committee on the European Union took evidence on the text in July from witnesses, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and Professor Elspeth Guild, who explained the position to us. In the political declaration of last October, which is the basis for the commission’s negotiations—it has been given a mandate to negotiate on that basis—there was only one section on what is called illegal migration, which in turn is the basis for a draft agreement. That provides for co-operation to cover only three subject areas which do not include this issue.
When I first read the political declaration I wondered whether illegal migration covered refugees at all because they are not illegal, but since one of the three issues is tackling problems upstream, that suggests that refugees come within it. However, I will not challenge a professor of law with posts at two prestigious institutions, and I follow her argument. The EU has no mandate in negotiations, but that is not the end of it. The UK cannot negotiate an agreement member state by member state, because this is, counter-intuitively in view of what I have said, a fully exercised competence of the EU, so it is not open to member states to negotiate with the UK. It is counter-intuitive and a Catch-22 situation. Professor Guild said:
“The idea that we would be able to negotiate with each member state an equivalent of Article 6 of the Dublin regulations seems to me … astonishingly naive.”
It would need a lot of political will on all sides to sort this out through the UK-EU negotiations. We are all aware that matters are somewhat tense—would that be the right description? I, like others, am not optimistic about a positive outcome.
In January 2019, when the House was considering this issue, the Minister wrote to noble Lords that:
“negotiations ahead can be carried out with full flexibility and in an appropriate manner across all policy areas”,
referring to
“the traditional division between Government and Parliament”.
Given what we all know, or maybe do not know but suspect, about what is going on, is it wise to rely on the possibility of negotiation?
Apart from the principle, there are some shortcomings in the draft text of the provisions: the “may”, not “must”. It also says that no rights can be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the parties. That alone would make it hard to go along with the text. However, we can sort this out in domestic law, hence the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has been as persuasive as ever. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been clear about channel crossings. I will not go on; I agree with pretty much everything—possibly everything—that has been said. Immigration Bills come along quite frequently, but we should not wait for the next one. The amendment is not a big ask; its objective, in proposed new subsection (5), is clear, but it requires strategy and clarity about reaching that objective. Crucially, it refers to the “child’s best interests”. We should take this opportunity to provide this safe and legal route for children.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 48 provides that the only existing legal route, which is under the Dublin III convention, for asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children, to join family in the UK would remain operational after the end of the transition period. It also requires the Secretary of State to lay a strategy before Parliament to ensure that unaccompanied children continue to be relocated to the UK if it is in the child’s best interest. Family reunion under the Dublin III convention will no longer apply after the end of the transition period, in just over three months’ time. That means that vulnerable child refugees seeking to join relatives in the UK will no longer have this, or any other, safe route to our country, unless—which looks increasingly unlikely—there is a deal with the EU before the end of the transition period, which incorporates an alternative family reunion arrangement.
The Government have previously given assurances that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children. However, the UK’s draft proposal for a replacement to family reunion no longer includes mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate such reunions. Instead, it makes a child’s right to join their relatives discretionary and, on top of that, abolishes a child’s right to appeal against a refusal. Vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children and adults, would lose access to family reunion entirely. The evidence indicates that, without a mandatory requirement, family reunions will, to all intents and purposes, end, which may be the intention behind the Government’s draft proposal.
For the five years before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, from 2009 to 2014, family reunions of children and adults to the UK averaged just 11 people annually. After mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK averaged nearly 550 people annually. Significantly more than 11, but not a significant number in itself, compared with the overall net migration figure of some 200,000 plus. Without a mandatory requirement, children are likely to remain stranded in Europe indefinitely; alternatively, some may risk the more hazardous routes, involving crossing the Channel in small boats or a lorry in an attempt to reach family members.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken with such passion on these amendments; I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, of course, although I am not sure that I agree with his summation of our history of providing refuge for the most vulnerable children across the globe. The Government have an excellent humanitarian record in assisting vulnerable people, including children. We are one of the world’s leading refugee resettlement states. Under national resettlement schemes, we have resettled more refugees than any country in Europe and are in the top five countries worldwide. In contrast to some of the things noble Lords have been saying, we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees since 2015, around half of whom were children. We can be proud as a country of our ambitious commitments and achievements.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, stated that France and Germany have more asylum claims than us. That is not the case. We received 3,651 asylum claims from UASC in 2019, more than any other EU state and 20% of all claims made in the EU and UK. I hope that I have set that record straight.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked what we have done during the pandemic. It is absolutely fair to say that it has been very difficult to resettle children for all the reasons that the pandemic has brought; however, the UK has remained open to receiving Dublin transfers. I remember that, very early on in the pandemic crisis, Minister Philp was in talks with Greece. Three group flights have taken place from Greece in recent months, on 11 May, 28 July and 6 August. We continue to make arrangements with Greek officials to facilitate transfers of people we have accepted under the regulation. I must make it clear that all arrangements to complete the transfer are the responsibility of the sending state.
There are 5,000 unaccompanied children in local authority care. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, says that he knows that there are councils which would take more. I have pressed him for the last four years to tell me which councils these are and whether they would come forward to offer those places. Of course, Kent is struggling at the moment, but if there are more local authorities who can provide that protection, we would really like to hear from them.
We have given protection to nearly 45,000 children since 2010, including over 7,000 in the past year. We also issued over 7,400 family reunion visas in the year to March 2020. I do not think that is a sign of a mean country but a sign of a very small country that has done everything in its power to help the most vulnerable. In addition, once we have delivered our current commitments under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme—with almost 20,000 to date, and we will get to 20,000—we will consolidate our main schemes into a new global UK resettlement scheme. Our priority will be to continue to identify and resettle vulnerable refugees in need of protection, as identified and referred by UNHCR.
The proposed new clause does not recognise the existing routes in our immigration system for reuniting families, nor that we are pursuing new reciprocal arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We have tabled draft legal text for a negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system which would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity. These guarantees cannot be provided for in UK domestic provisions alone. We have acted in good faith and hope that the EU will do the same. The draft has not been rejected but—just to correct another statement made tonight—is still on the negotiating table. We will continue to provide safe and legal routes to Britain to bring together families of refugees through our refugee family reunion policy. Additionally, family members of British citizens or those granted settlement in the UK can apply to join them under Part 8 and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. All these routes remain in place at the end of the transition period.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord is, unsurprisingly, based on recreating the Dublin regulation. This is obviously an EU provision, and we have now left the EU. We are a sovereign state with our own family reunion routes, which are substantial, as I have just set out. We must avoid creating further incentives for people, particularly children, to leave their families and risk those dangerous journeys. This plays into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people, and it goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. Allowing individuals to sponsor family members to join them in the UK before a decision on their asylum claim is made creates great uncertainty for families, who may be unable to remain in the UK. We must also guard against significantly increasing the number of people who could qualify for family reunion while not necessarily needing protection themselves, and who may be seeking to make unfounded claims on our protection systems for economic gain.
Finally, the proposed amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a strategy on the relocation of unaccompanied children from EEA states. The Government have no intention to lay such a strategy. It would be incredibly challenging to deliver, not least because of the pressures already faced by local authorities that are currently caring for over 5,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That is an increase of 146% since 2014. As I said earlier, in 2019 the UK received the highest number of asylum claims from unaccompanied children in Europe, and 20% of all such claims made in the EU and UK. We only have to look at the situation in Kent in recent weeks to realise the pressure that some local authorities face. Alleviating that pressure and ensuring that unaccompanied children already in the UK receive the care they need has got to be our priority. In the longer term, we need to ensure that there is a fairer allocation of caring responsibilities across the entire country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, in July the Government announced they had successfully completed the transfer of 480 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Greece, France and Italy under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. Parliament was very clear then that this was a one-off scheme, which is now complete. We are pleased to see other countries now stepping up to support Greece by taking in unaccompanied children, and we stand ready to offer advice and guidance to member states who wish to develop their own schemes.
On that note, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so supportively and passionately in favour of the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for having laid out the Government’s arguments and responses. I am sure that we will come back to this on Report, but I would like to make some very brief comments. I do not want to bandy figures too much; I think we can probably deal with that between now and Report stage.
The Minister mentioned the Section 67 scheme in the 2016 Act. The Minister said it was a one-off scheme, but it was only one-off because the Government arbitrarily closed it. There was no number given in the amendment; the Government quite arbitrarily said that there were no more local authority places. I think the Government stopped that one.
The Minister mentioned the children who came and how generous we have been but, according to the figures she quoted, the majority of these children came illegally. They crossed the channel, either in dinghies or in the back of lorries. I believe that, had they had legal paths to safety, they would not have come that way. The figures would have been the same, but some of them would have had a safe and legal crossing, instead of the terrible dangers of crossing the channel.
I will certainly get back to the Minister with indications of those local authorities—it was some time ago that we did the check—that I know are able and willing to take child refugees, so we can take the argument to that point.
The Minister mentioned the global UK resettlement scheme. Fine, I am all in support of that, except of course that this will not take a single child from Europe, as I understand it; it will be ones from the region. I welcome that they will be taken from the region, but I do not welcome the fact that the scheme will not cover any from Europe, which is why we need this particular amendment.
With regards to push and pull factors, I remember talking to a Syrian boy who fled from Damascus or Aleppo. He told me very vividly how he had seen his father blown up by a bomb in front of him. That is an experience which will mark a child for life, and that is a real push factor if ever there was one. A lot of the children I have spoken to have had the most terrible journeys in order to try and find safety. They are coming because they want to find safety somewhere in the world. The majority of them have gone to Germany, Sweden and other EU countries. Some have come here, and I hope more will come.
As I say, I believe we can return to this on Report. I repeat my gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 49. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 49
Lord Oates
“EU Settlement Scheme: physical documented proof
(1) The Secretary of State must issue physical proof confirming pre-settled status or settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status under the EU Settlement Scheme and who request such proof.(2) No fee may be charged for issuing physical proof under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to provide physical proof of settled and pre-settled status to those who make a successful application through the scheme, providing physical evidence of their migration status.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 49, to which the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Kerslake and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, have added their name. The noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Kerslake, have asked me to pass on their apologies for not being able to participate in the debate—the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, cannot do so for obvious reasons—and to make my remarks on their behalf also.
I pay tribute to the3million for its tireless advocacy on behalf of EU citizens in the UK, as well as to British in Europe and the other country-specific groups that represent UK citizens in the EU and work so hard on their behalf.
The amendment’s importance is underlined by the fact that it not only commands cross-party support but is backed both by people, like me, who passionately wanted us to remain in the European Union and by those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Polak, were equal in their passion to leave. This amendment is not about refighting the battles of Brexit. It is simply about ensuring that EU citizens feel secure in their new status and do not face discrimination in the provision of services or the right to employment. It might even be described—properly, on this occasion—as specific and limited in its nature.
The amendment would require the Government to provide physical proof confirming settled or pre-settled status to all EEA and Swiss nationals and their families who have been granted such status and who request it. It would also require that the document be provided free of charge. The only way in which it appears to diverge from Amendment 51 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is that physical documents would be provided on request rather than automatically, so that those who did not feel the need for a physical residence card would not get one but those who did would be guaranteed one.
If the Government are correct that the system of verification and cloud-based proof of status will prove simple to use and will run smoothly, there may be little demand for such documents. But if, as I suspect, those granted settled status find that the digital system does not work effectively or is not understood by the service providers they must interact with—or if they simply want the physical surety that I would certainly desire were I permanently resident in another country—it will be available to them as it should be.
The arguments for the Government’s position are a little hard to follow but they seem principally to be these: first, that it would be confusing to people to have a digital system as well as a physical proof of status; secondly, that a digital proof is better than a physical proof because a digital proof cannot be lost; thirdly, that the Government intend to move to a wholly digital system in future and that it therefore makes sense for this new settled status scheme to adopt a wholly digital model from the outset.
On the first point, it is not clear why the Government think that having both physical proof and digital proof would be confusing, as this is exactly the system that exists for non-EEA citizens. They can access a digital proof of status and have a physical document. Landlords, employers and others who are expected to check for immigration status already operate under this system.
Within the settled status scheme itself, there are two different categories. Astonishingly, non-EEA nationals who are family members of EEA nationals—and who therefore acquire settled status through their family relationship—have the right to a physical document, while the EEA family member through whom they gain their status does not. Can the Minister explain to the House the logic behind this very curious arrangement and how it can possibly be said to provide clarity to anyone?
Secondly, when we discussed these matters, the Minister argued that digital proof is better than physical proof because it cannot be lost. I will be very clear to the Government and the Minister that this amendment would ensure that a physical document complements digital proof and would not replace it.
Thirdly, the Government have argued that it makes sense to adopt a digital model as this is the direction of travel of the Government as a whole. However, if a wholly digital system is to be introduced, it should be extensively piloted first with British citizens who are secure in their immigration status. We should not conduct an experiment with the lives of millions of people who are in receipt of an entirely new status, whose rights are not even underpinned in primary legislation and who are, understandably, extremely nervous about the situation in which they find themselves. It is, quite simply, wrong, especially when we already know the problems it will lead to. In 2018, the Government trialled their digital right-to-work scheme with non-EU citizens who have the backup of a physical residence card. Their own internal assessment stated the following:
“There is a clearly identified user need for the physical card at present, and without strong evidence that this need can be mitigated for vulnerable, low-digital skill users, it should be retained.”
In her response, can the Minister explain to the House what has changed since the Government made that assessment?
I hope that, during this evening’s debate, the Minister will be able to put her brief aside and try to walk in the shoes of the people who will be subject to this new system. I hope she will consider the anxiety and distress that they will be caused by the fact that, of the 70 million people living in Britain, they alone will be refused physical proof of their right to do so. I hope she will consider the fact that this anxiety and distress will be particularly acute among the elderly, the vulnerable and those lacking digital literacy.
I have tried to imagine what it would be like if I had an elderly relative who was an EU citizen and I had to explain to them that the whole proof of their continuing right to live in the UK existed only somewhere in the cloud, dependent on the resilience of government IT systems, the integrity of the data within them and the vagaries of an internet connection. I can imagine the distress and disbelief with which that relative would receive this information, and I wonder how I would explain to them why the Government were unwilling to do a simple thing and provide them with the reassurance of a physical document: something they could hold in their hand and show, themselves, to whoever in authority required it. This is something that will be provided to all UK citizens resident in the EU. I do not know whether the Minister or any of her colleagues in government have really thought about how those conversations will go and the distress that will be caused. However, if they have not, I hope they will now think about it and the position they have taken.
We still await the policy equality statement on the settlement scheme, which was originally promised in the spring. On July 28 this year, the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, Kevin Foster, stated that it would be published shortly. Can the Minister confirm that the equality statement exists, that it will be published and when it will be published? Does she recognise that the failure to provide such information before we debate legislation makes it very hard to make parliamentary accountability effective?
While the most vulnerable will inevitably suffer the most, all those with settled status are likely to be impacted by the absence of physical documents. Briefing from the3million group provides illustrative examples of the problems that people will encounter under the new system, which could have a severe impact on their ability to work, rent a property or access medical and other services. They are instructive illustrations and I hope the Government will look at them—and the issues they give rise to—carefully.
As the briefing tells us, research conducted by the Residential Landlords Association found that 20% of landlords are less likely to consider renting to EU or EEA nationals as a consequence of their lack of physical documentation. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants conducted 150 mystery shopping enquiries and found that 85% of prospective tenants who asked landlords to conduct an online check received no response at all. Of those landlords who did reply, only three said explicitly they would carry out such checks.
The situation is little better when it comes to employment. A poll of 500 employers conducted on behalf of the3million found that only 36% of employers knew that an online verification system would be applicable to EU citizens after the end of the grace period. This fell to just 17% among small businesses with a turnover of under £500,000, which means that four out of five such employers are not aware how right-to-work checks will operate under the new system.
What is the likely outcome of such confusion? It is that landlords and employers, who face unlimited fines and potential imprisonment if they employ or rent to someone who does not have the right to work or rent in the UK, will play it safe. As a result, EU citizens will be discriminated against compared with those who can show a physical document indicating their right to live or work in the UK. This is the real world, and these are the real effects on people’s lives, which could be corrected so easily by this amendment.
I hope that in the face of this compelling evidence of the clear harm that this discriminatory system will impose on millions of EU citizens, and in accordance with the promises made by senior members of the Government during the referendum campaign, the Government will think again, show themselves to have empathy and compassion and agree to this simple amendment, which would prevent so many unnecessary problems and so much unnecessary hardship from arising.
I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his excellent and thoughtful introduction.
Non-EU citizens are given physical proof of their settled status. Can it really be that EU citizens will be the only group without physical proof of status? The immigration system should treat people fairly and justly. People who have come to the UK and live here lawfully should not struggle to demonstrate their rights. A physical document, such as a biometric residence permit like those issued to non-EU citizens, will give that peace of mind.
I am entirely at one with the Government and specifically the Home Office’s ambition to digitalise. Of course, it is the way forward. But we are not there yet and, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, the lack of physical proof will be of great concern to those who may not be digitally literate—specifically, some older people. So I was happy to support this amendment once it was agreed to add the requirement that the Government provide the physical proof if requested, thus alleviating the strain on the department.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, began, this amendment is neither political nor a repeat of arguments. It is simply a practical and sensible option to give some people comfort. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree with me that it is just the right thing to do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am the first person who signed Amendment 51 to speak on this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for providing such a clear introduction to both the need for a physical document and the difference between these two amendments. Amendment 51, which I signed with the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, calls for the automatic provision of the document, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates said, and Amendment 49 would provide one on request. I would argue that Amendment 51 is stronger because “on request” requires people seeing into the future and predicting when things might not work. It would be simpler and easier for the department to administer, but either one of these amendments would be a significant improvement on the situation we have now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, both the3million and Britons in Europe have done a great deal of work to spread the information about the need for this document. I was at a briefing earlier with the Children’s Society and the3million, focusing on the situation of the 260,000 children who have acquired settled status and the 150,000 who now have pre-settled status. If we think about the situation where—in about 10 or 15 years’ hence—one of those young children has to suddenly prove their status, recovering all the emails, the phone numbers and all the other information they might need to do that is likely to be far from simple.
I also want to address the situation for adults. Can the Minister confirm my understanding of what the process would be? My understanding is, for example, if someone wants to prove their right to work—as we were discussing in an earlier amendment—they will need to access their status via a website, providing the passport or ID card they applied with and their date of birth; they will then have a choice of getting a code with either email or phone; that code will need to be entered on the website; if that is successful, their status will appear on the screen and there will be an option to prove their status. They will then have to fill in the employer’s email address; the system will attempt to email a code to the employer, who will then need to find the correct website, enter the code along with some security information and finally see a screen with a photograph and proof that the person has the right to work. Does the Minister acknowledge that this has many moving parts? If any one of these fails, then it all fails.
We were talking before about landlords being reluctant to go through the extra hassle. We can also imagine plenty of employers who might be similarly reluctant—if they are choosing between two nearly equal applicants—and thinking, “Well, let’s just go for the simpler option.” We saw research from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that showed that only three in 150 landlords said they were prepared to do those digital checks. Perhaps employers might not be quite so prepared—if they are concerned about discrimination legislation—to talk about their reluctance to do it, but you have to wonder if it would be there.
Of course, as other speakers have already said, this is really very frightening; it makes people feel very insecure. It is estimated that 22% of people do not have the essential digital skills to complete this process. It might be that they rely on someone else—such as the small child that I started off by talking about—but what happens when that person is no longer accessible or available to them or in contact with them? Physical back-up would provide people with certainty and security. It would be good if everyone had it, but either way it should certainly be available. Therefore, I commend both of these amendments, but particularly Amendment 51, to your Lordships.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support Amendments 49 and 51. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said in introducing them so cogently and reasonably, and I had the advantage of being able to have had a conversation with him last week where he explained the generalities of the amendments to me. I thought the arguments were compelling; the noble Lord, Lord Polak, put it well when he said this was a practical and sensible option. All three speeches that we have heard so far have underlined why this is not one of those ragged political debates that require us to take positions; it is something about which we can do something useful this evening in Committee.
I will turn, if I may, from the generalities to something specific, a particular case of people who will be especially disadvantaged by the impact of digital-only status: the Roma community. On 2 August, Roma Holocaust Memorial Day commemorated the shocking liquidation of Roma in August 1944 at the so-called Gypsy family camp at Auschwitz- Birkenau. On that infamous day, 2,897 men, women and children of Roma or Sinti origin were murdered by the Nazis. Of around 23,000 Roma taken to Auschwitz—and hundreds of thousands more perished during the Holocaust—an estimated 20,000 were murdered there. At the time of the liberation of Auschwitz, only four Roma remained alive.
Now, 76 years later, Roma people still face discrimination and liquidation. I especially commend the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Roma in ensuring that Parliament understands the horrors that this community has experienced and the special circumstances and challenges which it faces today.
In debates like this, I miss the voice of Lord Avebury, a good and long-standing friend and the author of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. At the memorial event celebrating his life, Damian Le Bas, a Roma who wrote The Stopping Places: A Journey Through Gypsy Britain—a remarkable insight into the world of Travelling people—spoke powerfully about how parliamentarians such as Lord Avebury can act to ensure that the UK’s 200,000 Roma can lead lives of dignity.
Lord Avebury would have been the first on his feet to support these amendments, pointing to the lack of awareness within the Roma community of digital immigration status and the way in which digital exclusion simply builds on the other exclusions which Roma historically have experienced. The Roma Support Group says that only 3% of Roma are able independently to complete online applications such as those required by the European Union settlement scheme. Very little data exists about how many Roma have applied to the EUSS so far and been given settled or pre-settled status. As the debate proceeds, I will hand the Minister a copy of the Roma Support Group’s briefing on this so that she can read some of the cases illustrating this point. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how this problem can be addressed, especially as the Home Office data does not include a breakdown of ethnicity.
Enabling those who need it to receive physical evidence of their status in the UK would certainly be a start, and enabling programmes to be developed which could address the issue of digital exclusion, on which this debate has helped us to focus, would be a very good outcome.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we all cherish the memory of the much-missed Lord Avebury, who was a champion for human rights globally.
I will speak to Amendments 49 and 51 on the need for documented proof of settled status, and commend the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his compelling speech, and the crisp speech—notably from the Government Benches—from the noble Lord, Lord Polak. The ending of free movement, which this Bill implements, is nothing less than a tragedy. We should not be severing our links with our nearest neighbours, with whom we have the most in common. This seismic change in our freedom impacts all UK citizens, as we will lose our rights to live, work and study in the EU and EEA countries. For EU nationals living here—many of whom are our family members, friends and colleagues—and for UK citizens living in EU member states, the changes will also be profound, bringing a potential loss of security and life choices in the future.
The aim of the Government’s Brexit project of ending free movement to and from the EU and replacing it with the future global points-based immigration system was supposedly to deliver on their aim of reducing net migration. This policy is not supported by the evidence. In 2019, despite free movement, net migration from the EU fell to less than 50,000, but net migration from outside the EU, where there is no free movement, increased to its highest level for 45 years, above 280,000. Is this what “taking back control” was supposed to be about?
Those EU nationals who for whatever reason do not acquire settled status by the deadline of the end of June 2021 will move from an immigration system that currently works to the same unreformed system that currently applies to non-EU nationals, which is inhumane, dysfunctional and, frankly, chaotic. Even those who succeed in registering under the EU settled status scheme will receive no physical documentation as proof of their status; their rights will not be guaranteed in primary legislation and will potentially be subject to alteration by Ministers under the very considerable Henry VIII powers that this Bill bestows on them.
The Financial Times reported in July that the number of EU migrants who have applied for the right to stay in the UK after Brexit already considerably exceeds official estimates of the Europeans who are eligible to remain, raising further questions over the effectiveness of the Government’s scheme. Home Office statistics up to July show that 3.8 million applications have been made, far more than the official estimate of 3.4 million EU citizens living in the UK that was produced by the Office for National Statistics. In fact, the Financial Times survey of EU embassies discovered that the UK Government might have underestimated the EU-born population of the UK by more than half a million people. By the end of July more than 3.5 million grants of status had been made. However, around 40% of those applicants had been granted only pre-settled status, leaving them in a kind of limbo with their status still unresolved for the long term, while many more applications are still anticipated.
Experts warn that the confusion over the real number of EU citizens living in the UK will make it almost impossible to assess how many eligible people will fail to secure settled status by the time the process closes on 30 June next year. However, it is likely that tens of thousands will suddenly become unlawfully resident in the country that they have legally made their own and be left facing the full force of the Home Office’s “hostile environment”—namely, criminalisation and the threat of deportation.
The groups most affected are likely to include many from the age groups under 18 years and over 65 years, who have had worryingly low application rates. For example, there are 9,000 eligible children and young people in the care system in the UK, for whom only 500 applications have so far been made by local authorities. Non-EU-national family members of EU nationals, rural farm workers, those in isolated communities, those with limited English-language skills, those who are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, those without relevant or up-to-date documents and those who are not digitally literate—often the elderly—are all potentially at risk. That last problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic as the support services normally available to such groups have been forced to move online.
For those groups and others, such as full-time students, full-time parents and those who have previously left the UK temporarily for more than six months, providing the required proof of continuous residence for five years to the Home Office can be very challenging, if not impossible. This means that people with a rightful claim to British residence may lose their legal status overnight. It is another Windrush in the making.
The other main impact of the Bill is of course that, as a direct consequence of the abolition of EEA free movement for UK citizens, we, our children and our grandchildren will from January 2021 lose our rights to live, work and study in the 27 member states of the EU plus the three EEA countries and Switzerland—the biggest diminution in value of a country’s citizenship in history. Therefore, at the same time as the UK Government are opening up higher-paid jobs in the UK to the whole world under the points-based system, the brightest and best UK citizens seeking international career opportunities in the biggest, richest market on our doorstep, the EU, will be second-class citizens in their own country.
In addition, the multiple impacts of the Bill on the estimated 1.5 million UK citizens already resident in European Union member states, who will also become second-class citizens within the EU, should not be forgotten. For example, those with non-British spouses and family members will not have an automatic right to return to the UK with their family after 31 December 2020. Frankly, the Bill is an inhumane, reactionary mess and these amendments try to ameliorate that. I stress that they are not party political; they are simply about humanity. That is why I hope the Minister will accept them when she replies.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support the eminently sensible Amendment 49, so well argued by my noble friend Lord Oates and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
The Minister will get rather bored with me, I am afraid, but we are back to right to rent, which is the gift that keeps on giving. As I mentioned at Second Reading and when addressing previous groups, when it comes to renting to EEA, Swiss and B5JSSK nationals —that is, citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America—who come to the UK under six-month visa-free entry and can use e-passport gates at UK airports, landlords are told that they must rely on physical proof of immigration status. Not only must EEA and Swiss nationals, who enter the UK without a visa, produce their passport, they must produce a ticket, boarding pass or travel booking to the landlord to prove that they entered the UK within the past six months.
The Government keep claiming that physical proof of settled or pre-settled status will not be provided because all proof of immigration status will be digital. That is simply not true. Can the Minister please confirm on the record that this is the case?
Something the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said struck a chord with me. I recently lost my driving licence and when I applied to have a replacement the system said that I could continue to drive even though I was not in possession of a physical driving licence. I felt very vulnerable about driving without a physical document in my possession, so that if I was stopped by the police, for example, I would be able to prove that I was driving lawfully. Can the Minister explain when the UK Government plan to phase out physical driving licences and allow drivers to rely simply on a digital system?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit that I originally found the Government’s arguments quite persuasive in the briefing the Minister provided for us, but I have changed my mind, having heard from the 3 million representatives about the many potential pitfalls and just how anxious many of those affected are at the prospect of not having physical proof. I have also seen evidence from the Roma community, the European Children’s Rights Unit and the Roma Support Group, the last arguing that this group experiences a combination of digital exclusion and a lack of digital skills. That is true of many marginalised groups. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken very movingly about this group already.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to a promised policy equality statement that still has not appeared. This is really important, because we know that digital-only policies are likely to have a differential impact on groups with protected characteristics, as the example of the Roma community indicates. We know from universal credit the problems that digital by default can create for those who lack digital access and digital skills.
I am puzzled because the Minister’s response to many other amendments has been to complain that they would create a two-tier system, but it seems that this is creating a two-tier system that the Government are very happy with. Perhaps the Minister could explain that contradiction. I hope that the Government will not oppose this amendment. Amendment 49, in particular, is extremely modest, and I just hope that the Government will acknowledge the contradiction and ensure that they are not creating their own two-tier system here.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many very clear and excellent speeches, starting with my noble friend Lord Oates and including my old friends, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hain. I listened to both of them and thought, “They got some good training when they were kids, didn’t they?”
It is interesting that, of all the things that people such as the3million group and lots of other European citizens who are concerned about settled status and so on do not like, this is the one thing that they are almost all united in thinking ought to be changed. A lot of them put it at the top of their list of priorities, partly because it is such a simple and obvious thing for the Government to do.
I have been in this place for 20 years—I have to pinch myself but it is true—and I have noticed over the years that sensible Governments do not just lie down and do everything that your Lordships’ House wants them to do, although we have the debate and they listen. Occasionally they say, “Yes. There’s sense in this. We’ll take it away and sort it, and will come back.” I think that this is one of those issues. The great advantage that Governments have of doing that here and not in the House of Commons is that the Opposition do not then start shouting “U-turn” and so on at them; they say, “We thank the Government for their sensible thoughts and actions on this. Good for them.” This is one issue where the Minister, who has a reasonable amount of clout in her department and in the Government—not as much as some people but a reasonable amount—
Lord Greaves (LD)
There are shadowy figures who get appointed and seem to run things but never appear in this or any other House, but I am sure that the Minister could do it if she wanted to. I think that this is a single thing that the Government could do.
Various people have talked about it being a two-tier system. My noble friend Lord Paddick said it would mean that people with settled status would be in a position different from that of other people. They would be, and they would sometimes be worse off in some respects compared with some citizens of the European Union. For example, those who come here to work after the end of June next year will need a work visa. As I understand it, they will have a passport and the work visa will be stamped in it. They will be okay. They will say, “Look, I can work”, whereas those with settled status will have to go through the long and complex system that has been described to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
My other question concerns transactions, whether relating to employment, housing or other things—odd jobs and so on, with people doing work for others. If the European Union person with settled status, who might be on either side of the transaction, is the provider of the facilities or services, will they have to show that they are entitled to be here and to provide those services to their customers or whoever they are providing them to? That is a question for the Minister.
It seems a bit ridiculous in some cases, such as odd-job men. Somebody comes around—they may be a traveller or just an ordinary odd-job man—and says they will mend your roof by putting the tiles back on or will set up a window-cleaning round. If you employ them to work for you, and pay them to do it, but they are not entitled to work in this country, will you be breaking the law in some way—or is it all on the side of the person providing the service?
I have been trying to get my mind around the worst-case scenarios. If you want to rent a new flat and you are leasing it from a big landlord, who is highly reputable and provides high-quality accommodation, you will be okay. They will have all the computer systems, will know how to do it and be used to it. It will just go through. But you may be renting an attic from an old lady who has lived in the house all her life but does not know what a computer looks like or how to operate that kind of system. She does not work through an agent or anybody like that; she just does it. You may be a lodger or a tenant. Under those circumstances, you need a physical document.
I can think of loads of others. Think of the gig economy. Lots of it is highly organised and computerised, and will easily be able to cope—driving for Uber, running webinars or whatever it is. But a lot of the gig economy is short-term jobs, such as working at a bar, doing delivery rounds, music gigs or all sorts of things, as we all know. We should not expect this system to work under circumstances where people do not have a physical document. It is simply not going to happen; it is not going to work.
Then there is the question of self-employed people—your classic Polish plumber, or whoever it is, whatever they are doing. As I suggested before, they may have come to mend your roof or sort out your heating. This is a self-employed person, a sole trader. They may or may not be operating properly within the tax system, but there are loads of such people. How will they cope with this? Some of them have devices with them, but lots will not want to worry about computers. If you are employing these people, as I said before, is it your responsibility to check that their settled status is bona fide?
The more I think about, the more circumstances there are where it will simply not work. It might work in 90% of cases, but there are lots where it will not. Simply having a physical document means that the system can work. It does not mean it will, but it means that it can, so that people on all sides of the transactions can cope. I return to what I said before: this is simple. I cannot understand why the Government will not do it. They should go away, design a scheme, come back and tell us what they are doing, and we will cheer them to the rooftops.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 49. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his comprehensive introduction and on continuing to press this important issue. Equality of access and opportunity should be at the heart of every government policy, yet denying EU citizens this physical back-up to prove their status opens avenues for the exact opposite. It raises barriers that may unfairly hamper their ability to lead fulfilling lives and to carry out basic tasks, such as seeking job opportunities—as we have heard— finding a place to live, opening a bank account, getting medical treatment or safely returning home after travelling abroad.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
At the end of the discussion on Amendment 48, the Minister rebuked me severely for something I had said. I would just like to put in her mind the following numbers: Germany, 130,000; France, 90,000; Greece, 80,000; and the United Kingdom, 40,000.
I was extremely grateful to the Minister for seeing some of us during the recess to discuss the Bill. She will remember that the issue most discussed then was this question of physical proof of status. Most of us seemed to find it difficult to understand the Government’s reluctance to issue the physical proof that is so badly wanted by so many of those granted settled or pre-settled status. I still have difficulty understanding it.
Yes, the Government want us all to go online but, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, explained so powerfully, there are still many in the country who cannot—particularly older people and those with poor digital or linguistic skills. Probably, in the community that we are talking about of those seeking settled status, there is a rather higher proportion of such people than in the community at large. I cannot prove it, but it sounds likely. Yes, one can tell the potential landlord or employer to check one’s status on the Home Office website, but some of them cannot do that either. Many might prefer to skip the house or rent to somebody else, or employ someone else, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, explained. Yes, lots of people now bank online, but I doubt whether very many of them choose not to have a bank card. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, we are not trying to replace the digital system; we are trying to complement it.
The most powerful point tonight was the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak. People may be wrong to want the reassurance of physical proof, but the fact is that they do want it. Since it is cost free, what is wrong with giving them what they want? It is called democracy.
I support Amendment 49 or Amendment 51—I support both of them. If the Government still resist and still cannot produce a convincing explanation, I hope that a combined amendment will be put to the House on Report, and I would expect it to receive very strong support across the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, said that this was a practical proposal. I think the term tonight is “pragmatic.” That seems to be the one that the Government put forward in defence of their own position on other matters. This proposal is both practical and pragmatic and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, says, gives us the chance to do something useful. It is useful for those who argue—and we have heard arguments—persuasively and anxiously that they are denied their back-up, in the words of the3million campaign.
The digital status will not be infallible, but there are steps to it which can fail at any point. The examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, are very important ones of people who need and will value having physical documents. I add to them those who have been helped by organisations, sometimes organisations funded by the Government as part of these arrangements, who may not be able to make contact with the organisation in a few years’ time. They may not even remember which organisation it is, or the organisation may no longer be in existence. Yes, one might be able to search one’s computer to see where the information is. I cannot always remember who sent a particular email and, actually, I have my emails pretty well organised into folders and sub-folders. But then I suppose that I am “elderly”—and I would be grateful if Hansard put that in quotes.
The digital rollout is a big bang for the EU settlement scheme. Obviously, it is a matter of some pride to the Government, which is why they are so resistant; they have to hold on to this as a principle, because it is part of a rollout for the whole of the immigration arrangements. I assume that they will have some review before they continue with the rollout. One thing that I have learned during all this is that it took Australia 19 years to make everyone comfortable with purely digital arrangements, and Australia does not have the hostile environment provisions that we have in the UK. I very much support what my noble friend and others seek to do.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 49, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, inserts into the Bill a simple new clause that gives peace of mind to the individuals who request it. As the noble Lord said, it is very specific. I fully understand why someone would want physical proof that they have the right to remain here in the United Kingdom.
In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, set out a number of examples of problems you may need to deal with. One is the whole question of being able to rent a property. You may be required to prove your status, and I can understand a landlord being reluctant. Of course, the Government have made sure that landlords will pay a heavy price if they rent out properties to people who are not entitled to rent them. I can see the same problem for employers. When you take somebody on, you need to check and confirm that they have the right to work here. Again, I can see an employer being worried that they could take somebody on and then find that they themselves have potentially committed an offence. There are real issues here.
The problem is that it probably will not happen next week but in 10 or 20 years when we are no longer involved, all the officials have moved on and God knows where the records are. That is part of the problem. If I was in this situation, I would want to have some physical proof that I could keep safe and that, if necessary, would protect me in future if my status were at some point questioned. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, said we have to understand the stress and anxiety of people not having that physical document that they can put away, knowing they have this proof. With the Windrush scandal we have already seen cases of documents not being around and people who have lived in this country for many years, often coming here as children, really struggling to provide proof. I also support the call for it to be free of charge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made a powerful argument about people who flee abusive relationships, which are all about control. If you do not have control of yourself—being able to rent that property or to get another job—you are almost forced to get back in contact with the person you have already left, fearing for your safety. It cannot be right that the Government are creating conditions that cause those problems for people.
Amendment 51, in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to do the same thing with slightly different wording. It says “must make provision”, whereas the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, says proof must be available on request, but it is basically the same issue.
While sitting here, I was thinking about some of the things I do. I do not know whether other noble Lords have ever done a citizenship ceremony. It is very interesting. I have done hundreds of these ceremonies and spoken to hundreds of people who have been given citizenship. What happens is that you go into the council chamber in Lewisham Town Hall, I walk in, and then the official—normally one of the registration officers—explains carefully to the new citizens what it means to be a British citizen. They then have to swear or affirm an oath and we sing the national anthem. The final part of it is that they walk up and I hand them a certificate signed by the Home Secretary. I have handed them out signed by Theresa May, Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid. The official tells them that this is a really important document and says, “Before you leave, please check that your name and those of your children are correct. It’s your right to be a British citizen”. Then we have our photograph taken. There are hundreds of photographs all over Lewisham of me handing out certificates to new citizens.
We have this situation in which if you are a British citizen you get a certificate, but if you have settled status you cannot have one. That is utterly ridiculous. I hope the Minister will see how nonsensical that is, go away and deal with this and come back on Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank you all, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who made a rousing speech, but I fear we will go over old ground here. However, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Rosser, for providing the House with the chance to discuss the amendments on physical documents. I do not think they are necessary. I would like to reassure noble Lords that we already provide people who are granted settled or pre-settled status with a formal written notification of their leave. It is sent in the form of a letter, by post, or a PDF, by email, and sets out their immigration status in the UK. They can retain the letter, or print it, or electronically store the PDF and keep it as confirmation of their status for their own records and use it if they wish when contacting the Home Office about their status. I must say, it is not proof; it is confirmation. This should reassure individuals about their status when dealing with the Home Office in the future, but it should not be necessary because they will always have online access to information about their status, stored electronically by the Home Office.
Other countries, including Australia, as the noble Lady, Lady Hamwee, mentioned, issue physical documents in the form of biometric cards as they can otherwise be lost, stolen or tampered with.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about how the EU settlement application works, I had a session on this with noble Lords and I am happy to share that presentation with her. We are developing an immigration system whereby all migrants can demonstrate their immigration status via an online service, which they can access securely via the view and prove service on GOV.UK. It is accessible to them at any time and it allows them to share relevant information with third parties who need to check their status, such as employers and landlords, as noble Lords have mentioned. If necessary, EEA citizens can show third parties their written confirmation of status, so the person checking is made aware that there is an online service. Where there is a checked status, written confirmation must not be accepted by third parties as evidence of immigration status.
We are also developing services to make the relevant immigration status information available automatically through system-to-system checks at the point at which the person seeks access to public services such as healthcare and benefits. This will reduce the number of occasions when individuals need to prove their rights or need a document to do so.
In moving to a digital system, we recognise there are people who cannot access online services and will need additional support. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, cited cases and others were cited, such as the Roma community or indeed another category of people altogether. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, spoke about those in coercive or abusive relationships. We are committed to delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. Help on how to use the online services and share status information is available through our contact centre, and we provide a free assisted digital service where applicants to the EUSS or others making online applications in the UK are unable to get support. The assistance is tailored to an individual’s circumstances.
We provide a telephone helpline for landlords and employers in order to provide guidance on conducting right-to-work and right-to-rent checks. We are exploring additional support for those using our online services to ensure they can demonstrate their rights in the UK.
We will require EEA citizens to use their online evidence of immigration status only after 30 June 2021. We have designed the service to be easy to use, but guidance will be available should it be required. It will include guidance on those who care for vulnerable users and on use by a range of stakeholders working with local groups, including vulnerable groups.
The full package of measures that I have described will be available before EEA passports and national identity cards cease to be valid for proving rights in the UK after 30 June next year. In answer to the point on two systems that was made by the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Paddick, we will replace physical and paper-based evidence of status with digital products for all migrants, starting with EEA citizens, in the next few years. These changes are being introduced gradually in a way that builds confidence for users and provides opportunities for adaptations and improvements informed by user feedback. At the same time, we are developing an extensive package of communications to ensure that everyone, from individuals to employers, landlords and other third parties, is fully aware of the move to digital and how online immigration status can be accessed and used.
Right-to-rent and right-to-work checks are not new. I have double-checked and right-to-work checks have been law since 2007. That is 13 years since they were introduced—14 by the time that online evidence of immigration is mandatory in June 2021—albeit they will now be in an online format. This move to become digital is not new. The UK public has learned to access many government services online, from applying for a UK passport to paying their vehicle excise duty. In July this year, 87% of vehicle tax renewals were made using the digital service, dispensing with the need for a physical disc on your car. The feedback from users indicates high satisfaction. UK driving licence holders are able to share online with third parties, such as car rental companies, whether they have driving-related convictions.
Employers are able to conduct right-to-work checks on foreign national employees remotely, without the need for physical documents to be handed over. Holders of biometric residence cards or biometric residence permits have already been able to prove their right to work to an employer by using an online service, instead of using their card, since January last year—the first step in our journey to make evidence of immigration status accessible online. The “view and prove” service is popular with users. In the last reporting period, from April to June this year, there have been over 400,000 views on the service by migrants. In the same period, there have been over 100,000 views of EU settlement status by organisations checking status. The average user satisfaction is very high, at a positive 88%.
It is hard to imagine how a country would have coped during Covid without the digital technologies which have enabled so many of us to work from home, shop and obtain government services remotely. We have seen a sharp uptake in digital provision by service providers and digital adaptation by the general public. Most visa applications are made online. Providing immigration status information online has enabled us to simplify and standardise the system of checks for employers, by providing information about an individual’s status in a format that is easy to understand and accessible to all users, removing the need for employers and others to interpret myriad physical documents, complex legal terminology or confusing abbreviations.
The EU settlement scheme has been at the forefront of the transition from biometric residence cards to secure online access to immigration status information. The online system is operating in parallel with existing document checks of passports or identity documents. This approach is helping employers, landlords and EEA citizens to transition from using physical documents to online services. Ultimately, all migrants coming to the UK, whether from other European countries or the rest of the world, will have access to online services which will enable them to show their immigration status without needing a document or biometric card.
On resilience, digital services are designed to be highly resilient, with rigorous testing to build assurance before services are seen by a user. Multiple security controls are in place to protect against cyberattacks and we have employed third-party organisations to conduct vulnerability and penetration testing to provide additional assurance that our online services cannot be compromised.
I shall not detain the House much further, other than to say that we will always send a formal written notification of the individual’s immigration status by email, in the form of a printable PDF document, or by post where a paper application has been made. As set out previously, I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to delivering an online service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. We recognise there are vulnerable people, such as the victim of domestic abuse and coercive control that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about or others in the Roma community that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about, who may need additional support to use our online service to share their status.
Finally, on the policy equality statement that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned it as well—I am very sorry to say that I cannot add to other Ministers’ comments. The statement will be published shortly as outlined by them.
I hope that with those comments the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. She started and ended by talking about the letter that is sent to people about their status, which can be saved on their computer as a PDF. The Government have said, time and again, that, as proof of the recipient’s immigration status, these letters are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is disingenuous of the Minister to pray in aid these letters in answer to these amendments.
I know the Minister is going to write to me regarding previous amendments. Perhaps she could add whether or not, at any stage in the future, the Government intend to provide digital proof that an EEA or Swiss national who is on a six-month visa-free visit to the UK is here legally.
Finally, the Minister talked about vehicle excise licences going digital and said that no physical disc is now necessary. Can she tell the House what the increase in evasion of vehicle excise licences has been as a result of going completely digital?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the noble Lord knows very well that I cannot give him that figure. However, I take his point that the letter is a confirmation and not a proof—I think I said that in my remarks. The digital proof is a very good way of sharing specific information with people such as employers or landlords as proof of status, but I conclude that we will not agree on this one.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I do not think that anyone in this debate spoke out against the digital rollout or suggested that it was somehow new to require people to provide evidence of their right to rent a property or to work. What is new is that European citizens living here will be required to provide that evidence very shortly.
The Minister did not address at all my points about the staggering inconsistency of the Government. They issue certificates to all British citizens at citizenship ceremonies —hard, paper-copy certificates signed by the Home Secretary. Everyone has them handed out; I have handed out many. At the same time, the same Government and department will not issue any paper certificates to people with settled or pre-settled status. Will the Minister please go away and find out why the Government are acting so inconsistently? If she could write to me I would be happy to receive that letter, but it is ludicrous that there are those two things from the same department at the same time.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They all made important contributions and have provided consistent support on these issues over the extended period we have been discussing them. In view of the time, I will not go through all the contributions but I want to thank my noble colleague, if I may call him that, the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for his support and for the clear and eloquent way in which he spoke in support of the amendment. As he said, this is not a partisan issue; in reality, it is a practical and simple measure.
When I spoke earlier, I asked the Minister to consider putting aside her brief and walking in the shoes of the people who will have to work the system. I am afraid that she absolutely did not do that, and I am deeply disappointed. She said of physical documents, “I do not think they are necessary”. With respect, what matters is not what the Minister thinks but what the people who will have to live under this system think. They think they are necessary, and I do not blame them, because if I were a permanent resident in another country, I would want physical proof of my status. I suspect that many people in the Government would too. On previous groups, the Minister spoke at great length about discrimination between EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens, but that is exactly what the government scheme proposes and would do. She talked about how physical documents could be lost, stolen or tampered with. Then why on earth are the Government issuing such documents under the settled status scheme to non-EEA citizens who gain their rights through family relationships?
I asked the Minister what had changed since her own Government’s assessment of the digital right-to-work scheme found, as I said, that:
“There is a clearly identified user need for the physical card … and without strong evidence that this need can be mitigated for vulnerable, low-digital skill users, it should be retained.”
She did not enlighten the House. We heard instead much about the Home Office’s apparent plans to digitise the whole system. My noble friend Lord Paddick asked the Minister whether the Government intend, for example, to abolish the physical driving licence. I do not think he got an answer but I wondered about the status of the famous blue passport, which has caused such excitement in some quarters recently. Do the Government really intend to abolish it in favour of a digital status? If so, I would not fancy being the Minister who has to explain that to the Daily Mail.
However, there is a really serious point here. The Minister read out a brief that addresses none of the important questions that were raised. She referred to the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, about those who may be fleeing domestic abuse and whose partner may have been the person who controlled the email address and applied for the settled status scheme. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, got an answer but I did not hear what it was.
When Michael Gove appeared before the European Union Select Committee of this House in May, in answer to a question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, about documentary proof for EU citizens in the UK, he told us that
“the moral and social case for it remains as strong as ever, and I shall reinforce that argument.”
I hope the Government will think about those comments by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. To give them time to do so, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 53. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 53
Lord Rosser
“Exemption from no recourse to public funds
(1) This section applies during the current Covid-19 pandemic, as defined by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020.(2) Section 3(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot be applied to persons who have lost rights because of section 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Act.(3) This section may not be disapplied unless a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would delay application of No Recourse to Public Funds rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, many non-UK nationals with leave to remain in the UK, such as people on work or family visas, are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. This prohibits them from claiming a large number of benefits. The condition also means that some British children whose parents have NRPF, due to their immigration status, are effectively unable to access many benefits, as they are unable to make a claim in their own right.
Most non-EEA national migrants with temporary permission to remain in the UK have no recourse to public funds. To keep within the scope of this Bill, Amendment 53 would prevent no recourse to public funds being applied to EEA and Swiss nationals; that is, those who lose rights under Part 1 of the Bill during the current pandemic and then until such a time as Parliament decides. Before I proceed any further, I ask the Minister, when he responds, to say whether an EEA or Swiss national with pre-settled status, rather than settled status, would be subject to NRPF.
Since April, we have been calling for no recourse to public funds to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. We asked the Government to lift NRPF as a condition on a person’s migration status, in order to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken in the fight against coronavirus.
Nearly six months since the national lockdown was announced, towards the end of March, local lockdowns are still required and today sees a retightening in national restrictions on social gatherings. This is a reminder that the pandemic has not gone away. Indeed, the number of new cases of the virus has risen sharply in the last week or so, and the full extent of the economic impact is probably still to come. What the coming winter has in store for us pandemic-wise is unknown, but there appears to be a general consensus, including in government, that the situation is more likely to deteriorate than to improve.
The Migration Observatory estimates that, at the end of last year, more than 175,000 children lived in families affected by no recourse to public funds, and that more than 1.3 million people had held valid visas that would usually have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to them.
The Children’s Society has said that thousands are facing “extreme poverty” during the pandemic, due to their families having no recourse to public funds. A significant number of the parents the Children’s Society is supporting are front-line key workers in the NHS and social care sectors.
Citizens Advice has reported that the number of people seeking advice on NRPF has doubled during the pandemic, and that it has been approached by people facing an
“impossible choice of returning to work while ill, shielding, or living with someone who is shielding or losing their income.”
In June, the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees recommended that the Government should “immediately suspend NRPF” for the duration of the pandemic on public health grounds. That is very similar to what we are seeking as far as Amendment 53 is concerned .The Work and Pensions Committee reported:
“As a result of the no recourse to public funds condition, many hardworking and law-abiding people are being left without a social safety net and at risk of destitution and homelessness.”
In saying that, the Select Committee was also pointing out that NRPF was hitting people who are working legally in the UK and raising their families here, with many being key workers or front-line medical staff.
In response to a question from the chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 27 May, the Prime Minister said:
“Clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another … I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help.”
The silence since then suggests that little or nothing has been done, or will be done, to help.
In June, when asked by MPs, including Select Committee chairs, for an official estimate of how many people are affected by “no recourse to public funds”, the Home Secretary did not know. The Home Office does not hold these figures, which is perhaps a reflection of the importance, or lack of it, that the Home Office attaches to people with NRPF during the current pandemic in particular. Perhaps the Government will provide us with the figures in their response.
The Government are not unaware of the risk of destitution that NRPF is posing, particularly in the current situation. In March, the Local Government Minister, Luke Hall MP, wrote to local authorities calling on them to
“utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with no recourse to public funds who require shelter and other forms of support due to the Covid-19 pandemic”.
All too typically, though, this was not backed up with any clear instructions, guidance or funding, even though it was telling local authorities that people with no recourse to public funds should now have such recourse. The result has been inconsistency in application and authorities unable to do as asked, due to the effects of austerity and cuts in government funding, leading to a patchy postcode lottery.
As the Government will no doubt say, it is possible for families to apply for their NRPF conditions to be lifted when, due to a change in their circumstances, they are facing destitution—that is, assuming they know that it is possible, and how, and to whom, to apply. I understand that, in the first quarter of 2020, 843 applications were received for this relief; in the second quarter, 5,565 were received. This shows, on the Government’s own figures, that thousands of people are now in need of relief from no recourse to public funds. Will the Government, in response, either confirm that they do not know the answer or say what percentage of those on NRPF 5,565 represents, in respect of how many of the 5,565 applications the NRPF conditions were lifted, and whether they were lifted fully?
Support groups report that the process to have no recourse to public funds lifted is lengthy, complex, not available to all, and includes too high a burden of proof. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee has recommended that the evidential burden for a change in circumstances due to the pandemic should be reduced.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 53, to which I have added my name, which was moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Rosser. I am sure that I also support Amendment 73, but that has not been explained yet.
The recent report of the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee identified those with no recourse to public funds as particularly vulnerable to food poverty and insecurity. The impact on children has to be of particular concern.
A pre-Covid study of children and food by the Child Poverty Action Group—of which I am honorary president—found that children in families subject to the rule were among the most deprived in the study. Both children and their parents were going hungry, and denial of entitlement to free school meals was a particular problem. One child said of his hunger that
“it was like I got stabbed with a knife and it’s still there.”
Another explained:
“Sometimes you don’t have enough energy, you cannot cope in the classroom so you have to, like, try and rest a bit. You just put your head on the table and you end up falling asleep in the classroom and you get in trouble for it.”
The partial concession, which allowed some children in families with NRPF to claim free school meal support this summer, was very welcome as far as it went. But what possible justification could there be for withdrawing it now that these children are back at school, with the pandemic very much still with us? A letter from 60 organisations to the Education Secretary last month put it very well; it said that
“the Covid-19 pandemic simply exposed the precariousness of daily life for thousands of NRPF families, where the absence of a safety net leaves them only one crisis away from catastrophe. No matter where the next few months lead us, this basic fact will not change. Meanwhile, the effects of this crisis will continue to be felt for years to come. While much effort is being made to ensure children do not fall behind, without access to free school meals many children in NRPF families will face having to make up for half a year of lost learning on empty stomachs, at a time when they may still be struggling to cope with the mental and emotional aftershocks of lockdown.”
As we have heard, the Government have devolved to local authorities much of the responsibility for this extremely vulnerable group, without willing them the means to provide the support needed and without providing clear enough guidance during the pandemic. In particular, as the Work and Pensions Committee noted, there is lack of clarity on whether local welfare assistance funds, which have been boosted during the pandemic, count as public funds for these purposes. Could the Minister provide a definitive clarification on this?
Another concern, as we have heard, is the lack of official data. There has been an exchange between the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the UK Statistics Authority and the Home Office on the issue. While it is welcome that the Home Office has now published data on the change of condition applications, this is only a rough indicator of the extent of hardship caused and the data need to be disaggregated. Could the Minister undertake to see what can be done to improve the provision of data, possibly in consultation with the Children’s Society, which has done a lot of work on this? Without it, how can the Home Office assess the impact of the policy?
The amendments raise important social policy issues, but more fundamentally they raise crucial human rights issues. As Project 17 and Sustain point out, the UK Government have signed up to a number of international human rights standards that uphold the right to food, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I agree with them that, to uphold these obligations,
“our Government should ensure that all children, regardless of immigration status or any other characteristic, are able to access food in a dignified way and this should include universal entitlement to healthy free school meals.”
Of course the “no recourse” rule does not only affect access to food—for example, there are serious concerns about its impact on survivors of domestic abuse, which we will be raising when the Domestic Abuse Bill is with us—but the right to food is crucial to both healthy development and education.
Amendment 53 is a very modest amendment—indeed, some might say too modest—but it could make a real difference to a significant number of extremely vulnerable people, including children and women subject to domestic abuse. The Work and Pensions Committee suggested that the total number exceeds a million, of whom at least 100,000 are children. Moreover, as the committee underlined and my noble friend has already pointed out, there is a very strong case on public health grounds for the immediate suspension of the rule at least for the duration of the outbreak.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government are giving serious consideration to the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, and will not dismiss this amendment in the frankly complacent way that the Immigration Minister did in the Commons, with reference to “a range of safeguards” that evidence from a range of organisations indicates simply are not sufficient to prevent severe hardship and destitution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and Amendment 73 in my own name. I thank her for offering her support before I had even spoken to it; that is much appreciated.
To be speaking on these two amendments in what is Universal Basic Income Week around the globe has both an irony and an extra importance. Universal basic income would be an unconditional payment going to everyone accepted as a member of our society. No recourse to public funds, together with universal credit, is the extreme other view: conditionality that can deny people the most basic support that they need and human rights, such as the right to food, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, just referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, cited what I believe are figures from Citizens Advice showing that 1.4 million people are on visas, or have received visas, that may leave them having no recourse to public funds and therefore, in the age of Covid-19, intensely vulnerable. This is not just a human rights issue; it is an issue of public health. If you face your children going hungry and you have Covid symptoms but you could go to work, what do you do? That is a very difficult situation and one that potentially puts everyone’s health at risk. As other noble Lords have said, this is a very modest measure to apply in the special circumstances of Covid-19 when so many other things in our society have had to adjust and flex.
However, I want to speak chiefly to Amendment 73, which, as I alluded to earlier, is part of a package with Amendments 71 and 72. Together they create a situation where the end of freedom of movement could not be brought in until people who were newly affected by the hostile environment were freed from that environment. As I said previously, this is something that Liberty has done a great deal of work on, and I appreciate its support on this matter.
In the previous debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, spoke about the situation where people—most likely women—trapped in abusive relationships are in a very difficult situation if they cannot access evidence of their status. Of course, this is also true if they have no recourse to public funds and, over many years, I have spoken to many people—particularly workers in refuges—who have been left greatly distressed by their inability to help people in the most desperate need because they are in a situation where they have no recourse to public funds. People make choices to remain in abusive relationships because their other option is hunger and homelessness—a situation where they are also highly vulnerable to abuse.
So we need to think about what kind of society the UK is. I believe that we should be a society with a universal basic income; one where everyone has access to the support that they need. However, in the meantime, Amendment 73 would spare people being newly affected by the hostile environment of “no recourse to public funds” and spare them the impacts of this.
I am well aware that, with the Minister, we are on something of a merry-go-round and back to saying that this is discriminatory. Of course, I would absolutely welcome it and be delighted if this was to be applied to everybody affected by “no recourse to public funds”. However, in the meantime, I have put down the amendment that I have been told is what is allowed within the scope of the Bill. “No recourse to public funds” is now a dreadful sentence being inflicted on innocent people through no fault of their own. That is true under Covid and all the time, and I suggest that this is something we cannot allow to continue.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, both of these amendments seek to do something that I think very much aims to right the injustice of a million people—100,000 children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, was saying—having no recourse to public funds. For many of them, in a time of Covid, that means no food and potentially no heating, which is a danger to the most vulnerable in terms of, “Are they going to starve, are they able to get food that they can then cook from a food bank?” Because one of the real difficulties that you hear so often from people running food banks is that people say, “Please can I have some food that does not need to be cooked because I cannot actually afford to cook anything”. So we are talking about people who are going to be very vulnerable.
The hour is late, and I do not wish to detain the House for very long, but we have already heard that this is about social policy, public health and human rights. What sort of a country are we if we allow children to go to school who cannot be fed and say, “Well, I’m terribly sorry, you can’t have free school meals because your parent has no recourse to public funds”? Whatever choices the parents have made—whether they could or could not go home to another country—the child under 18 has no such say; their rights need to be taken into consideration.
These amendments are limited. We are talking about a time of global pandemic. The amendments are not asking for people to be taken out of “no recourse to public funds” in perpetuity, but the current context is that the economy is in a very, very difficult situation and many people who thought they had a job—perhaps on an hourly basis or possibly a zero-hours contract—may find there are no hours and they may not have been furloughed. Can the Government not find it in their heart to deal with these people fairly? It may be a question of immigration law saying that, normally, it is not right for these people to have recourse to public funds—whether that is right or not is for a wider debate—but, in the narrow context of EU nationals who find themselves still in the UK and unable to access public funds in the current context of Covid, please can the Government think about acting?
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Rosser and the other signatories to this vital amendment. The new clause they have described would delay application of “no recourse to public funds” rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides. That is a high purpose.
While I enthusiastically support the amendment, as Amnesty and other non-governmental organisations working on the front line remind us, there is a need to look at the importance of providing access to welfare support for all people in the group with which we are currently concerned during the current and future pandemics to ensure that people lawfully in the UK whom it is plainly anticipated will remain here, such as people permitted to stay by reason of their private life and people who have joined family for purposes of settling, are not left destitute.
Of course, while Amendment 73 provides an opportunity to examine the wider implications, I stress again that the NGOs are right to insist that we need to look at all those who are put in jeopardy by circumstances out of their control such as the pandemic, and measures taken in response to it, as well as illness, accident, redundancy and changes to immigration rules, or things that people have been given no or insufficient opportunity to plan or prepare for. This is an utterly humane and sensible amendment and I do hope it finds favour with the Government.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Covid has proved a desperate situation in so many different ways. One of the telling impacts is on individuals who have no recourse to public funds, not just for them as individuals but, as other noble Lords have said, in the context of public health, if they have to go to work, or to collect food from a food bank or other donors. The position is diametrically opposed to the UBI universal benefit, to which reference has been made. There is a lot to be said for that.
On Amendment 73, it occurred to me to ask what the policy aim is, because it reads as a hostile environment measure. What is the purpose of applying the no recourse rule to people whose future clearly lies in the UK? It is hard not to come to the conclusion that it is about starving them out.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group of amendments concerning exemption from no recourse to public funds. I will reply to Amendments 53 and 73 together because they are quite similar in nature. I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, particularly in the light of the challenges that many people face as a result of the current pandemic, as noble Lords have talked about. I genuinely welcome noble Lords’ desire to ensure that those most in need, particularly children, are supported at this time but I am afraid that I cannot accept these amendments. I will go through the reasons why.
As noble Lords will know, most migrants visiting, studying, working or joining family in the UK are subject to a no recourse to public funds condition until they have obtained indefinite leave to remain. Individuals here without leave are also subject to the condition. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked for numbers. I am afraid that these numbers are not part of the published statistics, but I know that Home Office analysts are looking at the data to determine what figures could be reduced.
The noble Baroness also talked about the provision of data. In his letter to the UK Statistics Authority, the Home Office chief statistician committed
“to further investigate the administrative data we hold to assess whether it can provide any meaningful information on the issue of hardship specifically”.
However, given the fluid nature of migration, it is quite difficult to provide an accurate figure of how many people are subject to NRPF, but we will do our best to get some meaningful figures.
The policy is based on the well-established principle that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without posing a burden to the welfare system. It is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK and does not lead to excessive demands on the UK’s finite resources. In exempting a significant cohort from the no recourse to public funds condition, even for a limited time, the new clause proposed by Amendment 53 would undermine this policy and increase the pressure on those resources. Depending on how far into 2021 and beyond this new clause continued to apply, it may also act as an incentive for EEA citizens who are not covered by the withdrawal agreements or other immigration leave to attempt to come to the UK to access benefits and services to which they would not otherwise be entitled.
Nevertheless, the Government absolutely recognise the importance of supporting those in genuine need. Existing exemptions and safeguards are in place to ensure that lawful migrants who are destitute or at imminent risk of destitution can receive support, including the option to apply to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted. During the pandemic, as noble Lords will know, the Government have gone further by introducing measures such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme—the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to this—and the self-employed income support scheme to support people, including those with no recourse to public funds.
More than £4.3 billion has been allocated to local authorities in England to support them in delivering their services, including helping the most vulnerable, with further funding for the devolved Administrations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, alluded to, the Government have also temporarily extended the eligibility criteria for free school meals to support families with NRPF, in recognition of the difficulties that they may be facing during these unique circumstances.
Those individuals with leave under the family and human rights routes can apply to have the condition lifted through a change of conditions application. The Home Office is prioritising and dealing with these applications compassionately, as shown by the 89% of 5,665 applications accepted in the second quarter of 2020, due to exceptional changes that some individuals faced in their financial circumstances. We cannot say what percentage of these with NRPF the 5,665 represents.
I turn to Amendment 73, which would extend the exemption beyond the current pandemic. Under our new global immigration system, EEA citizens coming to the UK will be subject to the same requirements as non-EEA citizens, including the same conditions restricting access to public funds. The effect of this proposed new clause would be to maintain an immigration system that provides preferential treatment regarding access to benefits and services to EEA citizens over most non-EEA citizens. This is not the Government’s intention, creating a system that is not fair and does not reflect the will of the British people, demonstrated by the EU referendum and, more recently, the general election.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I can say that those EEA citizens who are already resident here, or who are resident by the end of the transition period, can apply to the EU settlement scheme. This allows them to access benefits and services in the UK on at least the same basis as they were before being granted that status, so EEA and Swiss nationals with pre-settled status are not subject to NRPF. That significantly reduces the need for these amendments.
I understand the need to protect the vulnerable, especially during this time, and particularly in cases involving families or children, but there are already measures in place to provide this support. These proposed new clauses would also undermine the intention to create a global unified immigration system which treats EEA and non-EEA citizens equally. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me withdraw the amendment, but there are one or two comments I would like to make in reply. The first is to thank her for responding to the question I asked at the beginning. That answer confirmed that an EEA or Swiss national with pre-settled status would be able to apply for benefits and would not be restricted in being covered by NRPF—at least that is what I took from her response.
The Minister has confirmed—I am sure she will correct me if I am being unfair—that the Home Office does not really know how many people are affected by NRPF. At least, if it does know, it is still pondering whether to reveal the figures. On behalf of the Government, she said that, of the 5,665 who had asked for assistance for the NRPF conditions to be lifted, 89% had had that agreed. I do not know from that answer how much they were seeking and how much they actually got. If it was not very much or nowhere near what most people would regard as adequate, 89% would frankly not mean a great deal. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated, either now or subsequently in correspondence, what the average payment was and whether, in making the application, people had indicated how much they needed and the extent to which that need had been fully met.
I will not labour the point because in much of what I said I was not producing new arguments; I was quoting what other organisations have said about the effect that the pandemic is having on families with “no recourse to public funds”. The Children’s Society, Citizens Advice and indeed the Home Affairs Select Committee and Work and Pensions Select Committee have referred to the immediate impact on those affected of “no recourse to public funds” during the pandemic. Basically, they say that action needs to be taken now as far as the pandemic is concerned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 54. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear at the end of the debate.
Amendment 54
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Immigration health charge: exemption for EEA and Swiss citizens who are healthcare and social workers
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) After section 38 (immigration health charge) insert—<strong>“38A </strong> Health care workers and social workers from the EEA or Switzerland(1) Any person who would have had the right of free movement before section 1 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 came into force is exempt from the immigration health charge if that person is—(a) a healthcare worker; or(b) a social care worker.(2) The exemption applies to a person who is a family member or dependant of an EEA or Swiss national who meets the condition in subsection (1)(a) or (b).(3) In this section—(a) “healthcare worker” means a worker who works in a healthcare setting within or outside the NHS who may come into contact with patients, including clinical administration staff and care home staff;(b) “social care worker” means a worker as defined by section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (interpretation).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK to work as a healthcare or social care worker would be exempt from the Immigration Health Charge.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 54, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, seeks to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK to work as health or social care workers, plus their family dependants, will be exempt from the immigration health charge.
One of the worst things about the extreme ends of the Brexit debate has been how difference has been whipped up and used as a weapon—not by anyone here, but on social media and elsewhere. There is nothing about difference to be frightened of; it is an accident of birth.
At the height of the pandemic, when we all clapped the health workers every week, I remember seeing pictures of healthcare professionals standing together in their uniforms and holding up pieces of paper on which they had written which countries they had come from.
It was heartening and humbling to see the different parts of the world that people working for our NHS had come from. Huge numbers had come from Europe to do skilled professional jobs and make a life for themselves here. However, we should ask ourselves why they thought it necessary to hold up pieces of paper with the country of their birth on, and not just be standing there as health professionals. I suggest that the tone of some of the debate around Brexit is the reason they felt they had to point out that they were from other parts of the world. That is regrettable and shameful.
Before anyone else makes the point, we do need more skilled NHS workers—doctors, nurses, radiographers and other skilled professionals—from the UK population. I am not against that. I agree that more of our citizens joining these professions would be a very good thing, but it is not going to happen overnight. We should be grateful, be thankful, recognise their professionalism and act accordingly by including this exemption for EEA and Swiss nationals coming here to work in these important professions. Equally, Amendment 55, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is in the same vein and seeks to exempt NHS employers from this charge as well.
Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raises an important issue on which I hope we will get a positive response from the Minister. Charity workers coming here to work voluntary for less than 12 months should not be liable for this charge if they have been given permission to stay here and work in a voluntary capacity. This seems a reasonable request. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to support Amendments 54 and 55 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
My Amendment 65 is supported by more than 50 not-for-profit and charitable organisations across the UK. Many are household names, with support being led by Camphill Scotland, but the amendment is applicable to a host of other national charities providing services to those with a mental health problem, a learning disability or care needs.
We warmly welcome the Government’s recent announcement that health and social care volunteers from other countries will be exempt from paying the immigration and health surcharge. However, the Government’s Command Paper, focusing on the proposed points-based immigration system, appears to confirm that those wishing to apply to work in the UK as international volunteers, including in health and social care settings, will be liable to pay the international health surcharge. Requiring international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, to pay the health surcharge, is unfair and inequitable, particularly as paid staff from other countries working in health and social care in the UK will be exempt.
This clause is a probing amendment, tabled to seek reassurance from the Government that the recently announced health surcharge exemption for health and social care staff will include international volunteers working in or applying to work in the UK under the current tier 5 visa arrangements. International volunteers from EU and non-EU countries make an enormous contribution to the work of charities, supporting people with learning disabilities and other needs and the work of charities across the UK in health and social care and other settings.
By way of example, there are currently around 215 international volunteers in Camphill communities in Scotland alone, providing services for people with these particular disabilities and other needs. A total of 61 of these volunteers currently rely on a tier 5 visa to do so. These young people have chosen to stay and provide care to UK citizens during the national health emergency. This demonstrates their dedication to, and compassion for, the people whom they support. It would be a terrible blow to the morale of charities across the UK if the Government’s very welcome announcement about the immigration and health surcharge exemption does not extend to international volunteers.
Post Brexit, all international volunteers from EU countries and Switzerland wishing to volunteer in UK charities will require visas, along with international volunteers from other countries outside the EU and Switzerland. Against this background, excluding international volunteers from the immigration health surcharge exemption could deter them from working for charities in the UK in health and social care and in other settings in the future. Post Brexit, all international volunteers from EU countries and Switzerland wishing to volunteer in our charities will require visas, along with international volunteers from other countries outside the EU and Switzerland. Against this background, therefore, excluding international volunteers from the immigration health surcharge exemption could deter volunteers from working in the future. This will impact on the capacity of many charities providing care and support and education to people with learning disabilities and other needs, and also on the capacity of charities across the UK in health and social care in other settings, including youth work and services supporting young people.
Can the Minister tell us whether Scottish, Welsh or English taxpayers will end up having to pay for staff to replace the volunteers who have been caring for many of these individuals? I note the current shortage within the UK of both health and care professionals in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Before the Minister turns this amendment down, I wonder whether he would agree to meet with me and a representative of one of these charities that benefit from volunteer help and are anxious about future funding.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 54 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Rosser. I am persuaded also by Amendments 55 and 65.
Returning to the parable of the good Samaritan, cited earlier by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham in relation to another amendment, we find a man who puts aside racial enmity because he is motivated by compassion, while others hurry about their business because to intervene would, at best, complicate their lives and involve their life in the struggling life of another. I had hoped that the pandemic, which continues, and the clarity with which the Prime Minister addressed his own condition and the part played in his recovery by a Portuguese and a New Zealander, might have at last persuaded the Government to review this burden by which we additionally tax migrants beyond what they have already paid.
We are talking about people who pay national insurance and income tax. Yet, for a person from abroad entering employment—for example, in health or social care—with a partner and two children—they must, in addition to extraordinarily high fees for a three-year visa, pay in advance for those years’ surcharge. That is currently £4,800 for four of them. In the projected hike of the surcharge this autumn, this will become £6,564.
How is this affordable? How is this morally justifiable? What country have we become that we think we can burden migrants in this way, yet we expect certain standards of other nations in how they treat people within their borders? I support the amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, previous speakers have forcefully made the case on this question. When you really think about it in the round, it really is quite extraordinary the degree of charges in fees imposed on people by the immigration system. We discussed on earlier occasions the fact that fees on immigration applications for visas are set well above the administrative cost of processing those applications. On top of that, obviously, people pay tax and national insurance. Then we are to impose the health surcharge on top of that, as an additional tax on people who have come here not to be on holiday and swan around but to work and contribute to life in this country. It seems a kick in the teeth that, even if you work in parts of the health or social care system—and I shall come on to that—you have to pay to use the services in the premises that you work in. That seems quite extraordinary, and it might be looked back on as such in future.
The Government have, of course, announced that healthcare staff who qualify for their new NHS visa will be exempted from paying the surcharge, but other healthcare and social care staff will still have to pay up front. People like cleaners and porters will be forced to pay thousands of pounds for the period of their visa. The visa cost is rising in October to £624 and payment has to be made for every year the visa covers, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark itemised that. It could amount to over £6,000, if my memory is correct—I cannot remember the exact figure; it is getting a wee bit late—for a family of four with a three-year visa. That could cause considerable financial hardship on top of visa renewal fees that they are trying to save up for, then having to pay for the immigration health charge. They may also be subject to “no recourse to public funds,” which we discussed in the last group. It is not a double or triple whammy—it is a quadruple whammy, I think.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, are thoroughly justified, as is Amendment 65, which my noble friend Lady Jolly spoke to so eloquently. The contribution of volunteers to the health and social care system is obviously considerable, and it does not seem right to make them pay the immigration health surcharge. I hope the Government will find some compassion in their response this evening.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for tabling Amendments 54 and 55 and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for tabling Amendment 65. As noble Lords have noted, in May the Prime Minister asked the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to exempt NHS and care staff from the immigration health charge, because of the exceptional contribution that they make to healthcare in this country. This exemption will apply to relevant applications and, once our new immigration system is in place, will apply regardless of nationality.
Given that broader scope, we feel that Amendment 54 is unnecessary. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on volunteers, the Department of Health and Social Care is developing guidance on who will be eligible to apply for the surcharge reimbursement scheme and will publish that shortly. That involves consultation with the sector, but I would be happy to agree to the meeting that she requested in the meantime to discuss this with the Minister.
I am pleased to say that applicants for the new health and care visa, which was launched on 4 August, are automatically exempt from the charge, in that a draft statutory instrument incorporating this exemption has been laid before Parliament. Those professions eligible to apply for this visa include doctors, nurses and other critical health and care staff. The visa also includes reduced visa fees, and dependent family members are also able to benefit from that. The Department for Health and Social Care is working on a reimbursement scheme for staff in the health and care sector who either do not meet the requirements of the health and care visa or are in the UK on a different visa. More details on that scheme will be published in due course.
We have a fantastic service in our National Health Service. It has been provided by people from all over the world from, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, its inception, before we joined what became the EU, and that will be the case long after we leave it. The immigration health surcharge is designed to help support this by ensuring that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a fair contribution to the wide range of NHS services available to them. Income from the charge contributes to the long-term sustainability of a health service of which we are all, especially at the moment, justifiably proud. It has raised approximately £1.5 billion in much-needed income for the NHS since its introduction in 2015 to the end of the financial year 2019-20. This income has been shared between the four devolved health administrations in line with the Barnett formula, helping to fund the National Health Service across the UK.
We are introducing a new single immigration system once free movement ends, and our expectation is that people of all nationalities, including those from EEA countries, will pay the surcharge if they are staying for temporary periods of longer than six months, unless an exemption applies. Certain groups of people are exempt from the requirement to pay the surcharge, including those on the health and care visa. Others benefit from a discounted rate. Meanwhile, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, the Government are in the process of negotiating reciprocal arrangements with the European Union, and it is important that we do not undermine those negotiations through this Bill.
Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, seeks to exclude NHS employers from having to pay the immigration skills charge, where they are recruiting EEA or Swiss citizens. The Migration Advisory Committee has previously supported, in its September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the continued application of the skills charge without exemptions for particular sectors, alongside salary thresholds as a way to protect against employers using migrant labour to undercut the domestic workforce. The Government stand by this requirement. Immigration must be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s resident workforce. This is all the more important in the face of any uncertainty caused by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
For the reasons set out, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment tonight.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, my noble friend Lord Rosser has asked me to apologise to the Committee on his behalf, because in a previous debate he did not thank all noble Lords who had spoken or the Minister, in particular. He wanted to put that on record. He meant to do that, and I am happy to correct the record for him.
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and the Minister for his response. It is getting late now, so I will not go on, but I thank him for his response and all colleagues who spoke in response. Perhaps we will return to some of these issues on Report. I will certainly look carefully at what the Minister has said, and we may return to it at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.