House of Commons
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 3 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
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
My Department is looking to deliver infrastructure projects better, greener and faster through initiatives including the Acceleration Unit and Project Speed.
Nicola Richards
Given the impact that coronavirus has had on communities such as mine in West Bromwich East, will my right hon. Friend throw his support behind West Midlands Mayor Andy Street’s unprecedented investment plans in our transport infrastructure, like the midland metro, helping to bring it to places such as Great Barr in my constituency, so that all communities can feel the benefits of levelling up?
Grant Shapps
Yes, indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue and, of course, to the West Midlands Mayor’s relentless campaigning. I have been to see the proposed extensions. They are very impressive, and the Government will absolutely back any processes that will help to level up communities.
Mark Jenkinson
The Heathfield bridge on the A596 at Aspatria in my constituency crosses the Cumbrian coast railway line. It will shortly see the second anniversary of a car strike, which still sees the main arterial road reduced to one lane. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and stakeholders to ensure that action to repair the bridge becomes a priority and that this is not allowed to happen again?
Grant Shapps
I have been to my hon. Friend’s constituency and I completely appreciate how important the bridge is and the connectivity it provides, so I will absolutely commit to working with him to try to ensure that that connectivity is improved.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Government have undertaken activity across the freight sector to ensure that supply chains are maintained, from vehicle inspections to drivers’ hours and the temporary establishment of freight public service obligation contracts.
Margaret Ferrier
Covid-19 has placed major strains on supply chains across the UK, and many businesses that rely on red diesel are concerned that planned tax changes will have a detrimental impact while they struggle to recover from the pandemic. Will the Minister make representations to his Treasury colleagues to delay these changes until enough support is put in place to develop green alternatives to diesel-powered refrigeration?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member rightly notes that those tax matters are for the Treasury. I will be sure, in the early days and weeks of my time in this brief, to listen to all representations from the sector and consider any appropriate action.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
Several of my constituents in the aviation sector have had their terms and conditions of employment unilaterally changed, and for the worse. While support for the sector is vital, surely when executive bonuses and dividend payments seem unaffected, the protection of workers’ rights is equally essential. Will the Minister commit to supporting the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), as well as the calls of the trade unions?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The workers to whom he refers are highly skilled, highly trained and of enormous value to the UK and the aviation sector. I urge all employers to treat those who work for them with respect and sensitivity, and I urge them to work in a spirit of partnership with unions and employees.
Mr Speaker
Remaining in Scotland, we go to Douglas Chapman—he is not there. Let us go to the shadow Minister.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to say that my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the injured and all those affected by the recent bus accident in Winchester.
Local coach companies are much loved small businesses with the owner’s name and the town of origin proudly painted on the side of the coach. These are local small businesses that have served their communities through thick and thin. However, day trips and coach travel for football supporters have disappeared because of the coronavirus, and four in 10 of these much-loved local companies could go out of business this autumn, with the loss of 27,000 jobs. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will take urgent action to support these family-owned small businesses, and will he meet me and the coach operators as a matter of urgency?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that very important point. I know that that is an area in which he has a particular interest. I would be very glad to meet him and representatives of the sector to look at what may be done.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I echo the comments of the shadow Minister on the bus accident in Winchester.
Yesterday, the British Airways chief executive told the Transport Committee that he would protect BA at all costs. Those costs will be borne by 10,000-plus jobless employees and the remainder whose terms and conditions have been permanently slashed and are as yet unknown. Many of those jobs and thousands of others across the sector could have been saved had the Secretary of State kept his word to stand by the industry’s side. When will we see business rates relief for England and when will we finally see the promised sector-specific support?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member refers to some of the decisions taken by BA. These are, of course, commercial matters, but, as we have been clear, they are none the less ones that we regret. There are a number of aspects here, but the thrust of his question is, of course, with regard to support for the aviation sector. The Government have made available £330 billion of support through loans and guarantees across the breadth of the entire economy.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Government are working at pace to ensure the recovery of the aviation sector, and Departments are working closely together to progress options in support of individuals affected.
Richard Burgon [V]
Giving evidence to the Transport Committee yesterday, BA boss Alex Cruz seemed to suggest that the company’s notorious fire and rehire threats were now off the table. However, I am informed by Unite the Union that, although its campaigning has meant that many of its members are now free from this kind of blackmail, there are at least 800 mixed fleet staff who still face this threat unless they sign new contracts. What steps are the Minister and his Government taking to banish this shameful practice once and for all?
Robert Courts
As I have said, the Government are quite clear that they regret some of the decisions that have been taken, although these are of course commercial decisions. What I welcome is the agreement in principle between BA and Unite on behalf of cabin crew, which encourages the spirit of partnership between employees, the airlines and the union, which I am sure the hon. Member will join me in encouraging across the sector.
Munira Wilson
As has already been noted, while it is welcome that British Airways has potentially dropped some of its bully-boy tactics of threatening to fire and rehire its workforce on much worse conditions, it comes too late for many employees who had taken the difficult decision to take voluntary redundancy, such as the single father in my constituency who could not afford to feed his family on 40% of pay. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to support such individuals, because his Department’s response to the Transport Committee report said that it was the Government’s ambition to support these individuals where possible?
Robert Courts
It absolutely is the Government’s intention and desire to support these highly trained and highly valued members of our workforce. At the end of the day, we need to concentrate very much on the recovery and restart. The Government have already moved quickly to rebuild consumer confidence, collaborating with industry and the unions and across the sector. It is through that that we will ensure the vitality of the sector and those who work for it.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Today marks the 10th anniversary of Pope Benedict’s visit to Parliament when he addressed both Houses in Westminster Hall and reminded us that, in the pursuit of public policy, we should always keep the common good at the heart of it and that there is an intrinsic link between human dignity and the value of work. In that spirit and in welcoming the Minister to his post today, will he join me in thanking the tens of thousands of ground handlers in every airport across our nation who have kept our skies open, working for companies such as Swissport, dnata, Menzies and World Freight Services? Will he dust down that aviation-specific package that his predecessor had and bring it back to the table?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Member for making that absolutely superb point. He is quite right to thank those who work in the aviation sector, particularly the ground handlers, because of the way they have continued to work throughout the sector, which has ensured that vital freight and supplies have continued to come in, and people have been able to get around when they have needed to do so. The Government will be looking—as I will be in the course of settling into the role—at any possible steps that we can take to help the sector, which is absolutely vital for our country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Government have recently made £350 million available to make accessibility improvements at a further 209 stations through the Access for All programme. We also require the industry to comply with current accessibility standards whenever it installs, replaces or renews station infrastructure.
Rachel Hopkins
Since July, the lifts at Luton Airport Parkway station have been in the process of being fixed, so people in my constituency who are disabled, have mobility issues or have a family with children and a buggies are not able to access the railway. I am pleased that Luton station has been granted Access for All funding. I spoke to the Minister six months ago about the decrepit state of Luton station and the need not just to add shiny lifts to something that is not fit for the 21st century. Will the Minister give me an update on the much-needed renovation of the station, the accessibility needs that have to be addressed and where we are now?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I know, from when I met the hon. Lady virtually during lockdown, how she aspires to a wider redevelopment of Luton station. At that meeting, I promised to get Network Rail to continue its work with Luton Borough Council to finalise a solution to deliver an accessible step-free route at the station by 2024. Since then, Network Rail has presented a number of options to the council which are currently being considered.
Catherine West
Will the Minister accept a wider definition of accessibility and comment on the plans to stop the free travel for under-18s, which gets students all around London? Is there a plan for the Government to assist Transport for London, given its financial situation, to bring back free travel from half-term for under-18s, so they can get to schools and to other pursuits?
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is slightly beyond my brief and slightly stretching the accessibility definition to which I operate, so if I may I would like to write to the hon. Lady.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Government have undertaken the biggest ever pothole-filling programme, with £500 million funding each year between 2021 and 2024-25 specifically to tackle potholes on our roads. Further funding for local road maintenance will be agreed as part of the spending review.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
Drivers will be pleased to have heard that answer from the Minister. She may also be aware that Lincolnshire County Council has an oven-ready project to construct the North Hykeham relief road, part of the original eastern bypass that I have campaigned for, for many years. That section will give Lincoln its full ring road, boost connectivity in the region and lead to further economic growth. Will my hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues seriously consider providing the funding for that project and for dualling the whole of the eastern bypass—locally, we all know that that should happen—and perhaps meet me and council leaders in Lincolnshire to enable the completion of this important project which I have promoted incessantly?
Rachel Maclean
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his diligent campaigning over a number of years. He knows of the Government’s extremely strong support for that project and the vital role it plays in his constituency. My ministerial colleagues are currently considering the business case very carefully and they will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to consider the next steps.
Selaine Saxby
From my conversations with Devon County Council, it is clear that one of the barriers to improving roads and filling potholes in my constituency is uncertainty about future funding. Has my hon. Friend looked into whether multi-year funding settlements might be a solution?
Rachel Maclean
Absolutely. The Government are keenly aware that local authorities require certainty in funding to plan their highways asset management programme effectively. Any decision on multi-year funding settlements will be decided as part of the ongoing spending review.
Holly Mumby-Croft
The A15, leading to the A46, is a major strategic corridor for north Lincolnshire. Improved north-south connectivity via the A15 plays a vital function as a strategic economic corridor and is critical for facilitating the movement of goods in connection with heavy engineering and the food sector. It also provides an important economic role, linking the midlands and the south to the Humber ports, the refineries and one of the largest enterprise zones in the country on the south Humber bank. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that such routes are improved as part of the levelling up process?
Rachel Maclean
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right that improving our road network is an essential part of our levelling-up network. That is why the Prime Minister has brought forward £100 million of funding for 29 shovel-ready projects. She will be pleased to know that £4.5 million of funding was awarded to North Lincolnshire unitary authority for such work on the A15.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I recently announced a £600 million package for the rail network across the north, including £589 million to upgrade and electrify the trans-Pennine route, which is part of a multibillion-pound programme for High Speed North.
Robert Largan
On Sunday, the new 195 trains finally started running on the Hope Valley line, which runs between Manchester and Sheffield and serves New Mills, Chinley, Edale, Hope and Bamford in my constituency. While that is welcome news and something I have long campaigned for, services are still not frequent enough or reliable enough. To solve that, we need to increase capacity. May I urge the Secretary of State to invest more in this often-overlooked part of the northern powerhouse and finally upgrade the Hope Valley line?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to campaign for that. I am a great fan of the Hope Valley line. I cannot make an announcement about it today, but as he is aware, Ministers are investigating the possibilities to enhance capacity, and I do not think he will have to wait too long.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As more people return to work using our great northern railway and the southern railway, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the railway network and public transport is safe for increased passenger numbers?
Grant Shapps
As my hon. Friend knows, we took over the running of Northern earlier in the year because we were so dissatisfied by the progress, and it was then hit by covid, but I can report to the House some numbers that might be helpful. Some 62% of workers across the country are now going back to work. That is the highest level since the crisis began. In particular, the figure for last week—the week commencing 7 September—was 42% back on our national rail services. Northern is doing a great deal of work to make its services ready for people coming back.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Government have provided the largest ever investment in this area, with a package of £2 billion for cycling and walking and £500 million for electric vehicle infrastructure and e-scooter trials, demonstrating our commitment to a green recovery.
Kevin Brennan
Like many Members, I have recently dusted off my bike, oiled the chain, taken it off the wall and ridden it for the first time in many years, exploring the wonderful cycle trails in my constituency along the River Ely and the River Taff and out to the UK museum of the year, St Fagans, earlier this month. It is great to see a cycling renaissance, but what more can be done to ensure that this country genuinely is world-beating on cycling—I am sorry to throw one of the Minister’s clichés back at her—because at the moment we are not?
Rachel Maclean
I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the Government’s ambitions. As I set out, we will be investing £2 billion, which is the largest ever infrastructure investment. We have already delivered £250 million for emergency schemes, and we are helping people to fix their bike with £25 million-worth of vouchers.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Government are investing £2 billion in active travel over the next five years. That is the biggest ever boost for cycling and walking and, as we heard in the previous question, it is welcomed widely across the House.
Mr Speaker
It is a pleasure to see Tracey asking this question. We miss you; we really do.
Tracey Crouch [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I miss you all too.
Thanks to the Government’s active travel grants, Medway Council has managed to upgrade many of its cycling and walking routes, which is superb news for those at the Chatham end of my constituency. However, at the other end, part of the Aylesford towpath collapsed into the River Medway earlier this year and is now closed to the 6,000-plus users per month. Despite Kent County Council’s incredible efforts to find funds to repair the towpath, it still faces a significant shortfall. Could the Minister offer any guidance towards emergency central Government funding pots that would enable the reopening of that incredibly popular path for cyclists and walkers?
Chris Heaton-Harris
First, may I echo your words, Mr Speaker, and say how good it is to see my hon. Friend? She is one of the few MPs I follow on Instagram, from which I know what a keen cyclist she is—and, indeed, what she looks like in Lycra.
The Government allocated the first tranche of active travel funds to councils earlier in the summer; a bigger second tranche will follow shortly. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will be able to persuade her county council to make the appropriate investment in Aylesford towpath, and I would be very happy to work with her to try to help that happen.
Jason McCartney
During the summer, I enjoyed a socially distanced walk with the regional Canal and River Trust team along the canal towpath between Marsden and Slaithwaite in my constituency. I support its bid for £45 million of funding from the Department as part of the commitment of £2 billion for cycling and walking to get people out on the canal towpath. Does the Minister agree that supporting such regional bids is a big part of encouraging more cycling and walking in our regions, and that it is a vital part of our levelling up the country and improving the health of our constituents?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I happily agree with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. The canal towpath network across the country, a huge chunk of which runs through my constituency, is a wonderful place for walking and cycling. He is right to identify that we have committed a £2 billion package to active travel. We have started to get money out the door, and I very much hope that we will see schemes such as the one he mentions benefit from it so that we can all enjoy the countryside—and, indeed, other cycle routes through our cities and towns—more in the future.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government continue to invest record amounts in our rail infrastructure, with £47.9 billion to be spent over the next five years.
Elliot Colburn
Getting more trains into Carshalton and Wallington stations is reliant on completing the Croydon bottleneck project to unblock congestion on the Brighton main line at Selhurst. Network Rail will finish its consultation on the project on Sunday. What assurances can the Minister give me that the Government will back the project and get more trains into Carshalton and Wallington stations?
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion transport improvements in his constituency. My Department is currently considering an outline business case to progress the Croydon bottleneck scheme through our investment pipeline.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Government’s view is that the commissioning and provision of bus services should be kept separate, particularly as new partnership and franchising powers in the Bus Services Act 2017 are likely to lead to more local authority control and better influence of local bus services.
Sir George Howarth [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, but I do not think it amounted to an answer to my question, so let me try again. If publicly owned bus services are right for London, why are they not right for the Liverpool city region?
Chris Heaton-Harris
To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman’s question was, “What plans he has to enable public transport authorities to operate their own bus services,” and I gave the appropriate answer. However, as he will know, I am quite keen, as a localist, to try to do some of this, but the Government are committed to implementing the UK’s first ever long-term bus strategy, which will be accompanied by long-term funding. That strategy will focus on passenger needs and set out how the Government will work with local authorities and the private sector.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Department receives requests through many different routes to fund schemes that consider integrated transport, intra-city transport and all the other types of integration.
Mike Hill
As covid-19 breathes down the neck of my constituency and much of the north-east goes into local lockdown, and with local access to transport now needed more than ever, can the Secretary of State tell the House why many residents have seen their bus routes cut routinely over the last 10 years?
Grant Shapps
Good news for the hon. Member: this Government have committed to putting a record amount into bus investment. As he will know, 4,000 shiny new zero-carbon buses are part of that plan, as is a massive investment—a bus, cycling and walking package of £5 billion—in ensuring that bus routes can be expanded. We are certainly on the side of him and his constituents when it comes to expanding those bus services, notwithstanding the significant challenges of covid.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government remain committed to a national bus strategy and aim to publish it by the end of the year.
Dan Jarvis [V]
Covid is creating huge challenges for our bus network, and if we are serious about improving services after the pandemic, we need a commitment to long-term investment from all tiers of government. In South Yorkshire, we have produced an improvement plan for our buses, but we need support. So I ask the Secretary of State: when will we see more investment from Government for the sustainable, affordable and accessible bus service that we all want?
Grant Shapps
I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to his bus review report, which I have read. It is very impressive. We share the ambition to do much of what he has just said. The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive has received a £1.127 million grant, as he will know, and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority has been allocated £703,614. We are putting our money where our mouth is. We will publish our national bus strategy, and I think he will find that it complements the bus review report that he is behind.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Bus manufacturing is a key industry and companies such as Alexander Dennis, despite being world leading, face huge challenges. The Scottish Government recently announced millions of pounds of funding for ultra low emission vehicles, which is vital not just to the bus industry but to communities and businesses across the country. Will the Secretary of State please accept that our bus industry is teetering on the brink and needs a green bus fund rolled out now, not after Alexander Dennis and other companies like it are gone?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need not only to build buses but to turn them into green ones. That is why the extraordinary investment we are making—sufficient to build 4,000 buses—will come forward as part of the national bus strategy. It is important to recognise that there is huge turmoil, not just in the bus sector, because of the ridership figures. I mentioned the ridership figures for trains a moment ago, and it is right to inform the House that ridership on non-London buses has now gone back up to 58%. It is increasing, but that is all in the context of how we take the bus sector forward, and we will say much more about it very soon.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
There is no appropriate statistical breakdown. The Government’s focus is to support the sector’s recovery and to stimulate jobs and growth.
Karl Turner [V]
The job retention scheme has clearly helped businesses right across our economy, including in the maritime industries of port constituencies such as mine in east Hull, but when it is clear that the shipping and ferry sectors may take years to recover, the Chancellor is casting jobs in east Hull adrift by ending the furlough scheme, with no replacement and no plan. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that British seafarers, who have kept this country afloat throughout the pandemic, do not bear the brunt of that short-sighted decision? Will he please assure me that the UK will retain the maritime skills base that is vital for our future?
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman makes a number of excellent points. I am encouraged to see that some firms such as P&O have offered their own job retention schemes with a view to reducing any redundancies that have been announced. More broadly, I will work with all aspects of the sector to hear their views and to see how the Department may be able to help. Maritime 2050, which I will look at with fresh eyes, gives a good opportunity to see what policy objectives may be possible in the future, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that it remains a long-term policy of the Government to grow the number of UK seafarers and to support the sector.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
We are making active travel and public transport the natural first choice for journeys. We are providing £2.5 billion of support to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles.
Mr Speaker
We are now going to Swansea, via the New York backdrop, to Geraint Davies.
Geraint Davies [V]
And a Welsh flag, Mr Speaker!
The Minister will know that congestion levels in outer London have now grown to 150% of what they were before the lockdown and that pollution causes both covid infection and death, so why is she not encouraging the Prime Minister to continue to get people to work from home and to encourage investment from the Chancellor in public transport, when instead we are told to travel to work by car and not to work from home?
Rachel Maclean
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not attempting to travel to Wales via New York because that would definitely encourage congestion. I can assure him that we are investing strongly in public transport. We will continue to support the bus sector. We have provided £218.4 million of funding on a rolling basis from 4 August. We have provided over £700 million-worth of funding for public transport throughout the pandemic.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Government have listened to Labour and are considering bringing forward the date for the phase-out of the sale of new diesel, petrol and hybrid vehicles, but how is the Minister actually going to get us there? All we have had from the Government lately is gimmicks like green number plates and the suggestion that they will paint electric vehicle parking spaces green. The charging infrastructure is woefully inadequate. Other than painting everything green, what is her actual strategy?
Rachel Maclean
This was a Conservative Government pledge in our latest manifesto. We are accelerating the transition to zero-emission vehicles with £2.5 billion of support. We already have one of the most extensive charging networks in Europe, and we are ramping it up all the time.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Government are committing £27.3 million per week to support England’s bus services.
Paul Howell
Integration between all elements of public transport is critical. Will my hon. Friend bring the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who has responsibility for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, to Sedgefield to better understand the local frustrations and needs? We need to see rail investment delivered in places like Ferryhill station, where my hon. Friends could meet the team at the inspirational Cornforth Partnership to understand the need for more and better buses, particularly to better connect places like Cornforth to employment centres. They could also visit magnificent companies like Hitachi in Cleveland Bridge to understand how Government procurement processes need to better reflect their commitment to local economies as we build back better.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government recognise the importance of multi-modal integration and connecting communities such as his to employment opportunities. That is why we have made £198 million available for the transforming cities fund, which will deliver improvements to bus services, cycling and walking in County Durham. My hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to speak to him further.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Department regularly engages with Transport for London and the Mayor, including in relation to understanding the impact of covid-19.
Feryal Clark [V]
Private train operating companies were told on 23 March, just as lockdown began, that the Government would take on all their revenue and cost risks and support them through the pandemic. By contrast, Transport for London was not granted this emergency funding deal until 14 May. Will the Minister explain why that is and reassure Londoners that the additional emergency support that TfL needs will be confirmed as a matter of urgency, rather than being left until the eleventh hour like last time?
Andrew Stephenson
The Government agreed a £1.6 billion funding package in May. But let us be clear that Transport for London’s finances were in trouble well before covid-19, with a projected deficit of £220 million last year and £422 million the year before. Many of the financial problems can be directly traced to poor decision making by the current Mayor of London.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
We are committed to providing at least 4,000 British-built zero-emission buses through our £5 billion funding package for buses and cycling.
Mr Goodwill
If 2020 has been a tough year for bus and coach operators, it has been even worse for manufacturers such as Alexander Dennis Plaxton in Scarborough. We have heard on a number of occasions today of the £5 billion announced in February for 4,000 zero-emission British-built buses, but does the Minister agree with me that we need to get this money out of the door very quickly indeed if we are to avert a crisis on the production lines?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I completely agree with what he says, and I commend him for what he has been doing to support manufacturers in his constituency. The Government have announced over £700 million in support for the bus and light rail sector already to date, and we are also providing £50 million for Britain’s first all-electric bus town and the £20 million rural mobility fund, which will support additional jobs. However, I agree with him, and I hope that we will make an announcement soon.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government have pledged £500 million to start reopening lines and stations to reconnect smaller communities that no longer have a station.
Mark Logan
Is it not about time that Londoners had a direct train line into Bolton?
Andrew Stephenson
Improving services to the north-west of England, including Bolton, while balancing the capacity and performance impacts on passengers, remains under constant review.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I am the Minister for active travel, and these steps I am getting now are quite productive for my step count.
The Department works closely with the bus and coach sectors to assess the ongoing impact of covid-19 on their industries.
Jonathan Edwards
Many of the coach companies based in my constituency are family-run businesses, and they inform me that they are facing a year-and-a-half-long winter in economic terms as a result of the covid pandemic. They are, of course, vital cogs in the tourism sector, yet they cannot access covid-related hospitality, leisure and tourism funding. What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in the Treasury and the devolved Governments to address this anomaly?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. My Department has been in regular contact with the representatives of the coach industry, and we have been working very closely together. Officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport also engage with the Coach Tourism Association via the Tourism Industry Emergency Response Group. My Department has helped to put together the package for home to school transport—a £40 million package that is benefiting the sector. We have regular conversations with the Treasury, and it is clear that the £330 billion of Government support through loans and guarantees can reach parts of this sector, too.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
My Department continues to tackle the very many different challenges that covid presents to all the forms of transport discussed here this morning.
It might be worth mentioning that I visited London Bridge station earlier in the week, where a programme that involves all the Network Rail stations is being rolled out. It is using antiviral cleaning materials, which means that surfaces become protected from coronavirus for up to 30 days. It actually repeats this on a 21-day basis, and it carries out the cleaning during the night, enabling people to return to the railways with the confidence of their being covid-free.
In addition, yesterday, the first meeting of the Hammersmith bridge taskforce took place. This major artery through London has been closed for too long; it is now closed to pedestrians and cyclists as well. The Department for Transport is looking to get this resolved, and I have brought in my own engineers to do so.
Tom Hunt
Arguably the biggest transport issue that impacts on my constituents in Ipswich is the Orwell bridge. At the moment, the current speed limit is 60 mph, and when it closes because of high winds, the whole town grinds to a halt. The economic impact of this should not be underestimated. Highways England has a plan involving a 40 mph speed limit, which will I hope mean that the bridge can stay open even when it is very windy. However, I am slightly concerned about the timescale. Will my right hon. Friend communicate to Highways England his expectation that these new measures will be put in place before the new winter season—the windy season—when these closures will continue if we do not implement the new measures?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right that the Orwell bridge is another key artery for Ipswich. I know that it is subject to ongoing work by Highways England that requires wind tunnel validation. I have been promised that that work will be completed by the end of September. From the Dispatch Box, I send a clear message to Highways England that I expect to see it on my desk.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Our transport industries have been devastated by coronavirus, but its frontline workers have kept the country going in difficult times. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
At the outset of topical questions, with 72 hours to go before the current rail franchise emergency measures agreements are due to expire, I expected the Transport Secretary to update the House. I am afraid my sheet is blank because no such statement, comment or indication followed. That is absolutely staggering. Are we to expect that, rather than something being reported to the House, it will come out over the next couple of days or the weekend, denying the House the opportunity to look into it? Will the Transport Secretary commit to making a statement to the House on Monday?
Let us be absolutely clear that in the last six months, with the current management agreements in place, while many parts of our transport sector have been denied the support they need, £100 million has been paid out to shareholders, many of which, by the way, are foreign Governments. That cannot continue in its current form.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman will know that the first emergency measures were worth some £3.5 billion to ensure that our rail sector was able to continue. I have already described how passengers are now returning to them and the work that is going on to make sure that they are safe to return.
As the hon. Gentleman points out, it is the case that the EMAs, as they are called, come to an end quite shortly. I do not think the House would realistically expect me to stand here and carry out those negotiations in public, but I reassure him that I will certainly return to make a statement in the House as soon as there is something to say.
Jim McMahon
There are just 72 hours left to go—it is literally last-minute. It is a timetable that would make Northern shy. I do not know what is going on with the Transport Secretary.
We know that passenger numbers have fallen to 7% of what they would be in normal times, yet rail fares are set for another increase in January. The average commuter will pay £3,000 for their season ticket, which is over £900 more than they would have paid in 2010. To encourage commuters back safely, will the Government commit to freezing fares and introducing part-time season tickets, as Labour has proposed?
Grant Shapps
I hate to play politics at the Dispatch Box, but it is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that, under Labour, there were inflation-busting fare rises that added 4.9% during its time in office. Again, I want to make sure that we are speaking on the basis of facts. I will return to the House on the emergency measures.
It is not true to say, as I think the hon. Gentleman did, that the number of passengers is down to a single-digit percentage. As I said before, the number of passengers returning was at 42% last week. It is incumbent on all of us to demonstrate that the railways are safe; to take the railways from time to time, which I am sure Members on both sides of the House do; and to reassure people of the safety and efficacy of using the railways and all other public transport systems.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are committed to ensuring that our rail network is more accessible. We are in the process of making 16 stations in Wales more accessible as part of our £350-million Access for All programme. My hon. Friend the Rail Minister would be happy to meet him to discuss Ruabon station.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can confirm that no one puts illegal hoardings on land controlled by the Department for Transport or Highways England. Much of this illegal signage is put up on land located next to motorways, so this becomes a planning matter. I will therefore raise his concerns, if he is happy for me to do so, with Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that we have carried out some trials using noise equipment and automatic number plate recognition software, to see whether it is possible to match the two up and use them as we might use a speed camera, but for noise. Work is ongoing to compile the results of that study into a report, so I hope to be able to report back to the House on that. I agree with her that this is a problem. For example, sometimes exhausts have been modified, both in motorcycles and cars, and for no other purpose but to make a huge amount of noise. We are certainly interested in finding solutions to that, and I will report back to the House.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Grant Shapps
We are very keen to improve air quality, and that goes hand in hand with reducing carbon dioxide—the two often go together. Our massive investment in car electrification, which has not yet been mentioned, means that we now have more charging locations than petrol stations, and one of the best charging networks, in this country, although it could still be better. We are also ensuring that public transport and bus services switch over, and I have mentioned previously from the Dispatch Box the 4,000 zero-carbon buses that will be coming in. We will work closely with local authorities such as Bath to create clean air zones and improve air quality for everyone.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
The aim of the Restoring Your Railway programme is to reconnect people and communities. I know that my Department has provided feedback on the proposal to reopen Tettenhall station, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contact the programme’s team to discuss the next steps.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Andrew Stephenson
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently delivering the midland main line upgrade, which includes electrification from London to Kettering, with additional electrification to Market Harborough being developed. Further electrification of the midland main line is currently at an early stage, but it is being examined by Network Rail. The Department will continue to work closely with Network Rail on the development of a proposal for this, including approaches to advancing the delivery of electrification across the route.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the impact, and the same is true of many other forms of transport. I pay tribute to the work of taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers, who have been incredible during this crisis and have often provided the only form of transport available for people in certain areas.
The statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards have considerable teeth, because for the first time ever we will have national databases, and we will put enormous work into ensuring that all local authorities and hackney carriage authorities sign up to those and use them. I will say more in the not too distant future about our support for taxis and private hire vehicles through the pandemic.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
Officials from my Department have been in discussions with East Midlands Railway and provided guidance last week that should, I hope, enable train operators to resolve this issue.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Grant Shapps
I, too, declare an interest as an electric car driver. Although I said, accurately, that there are now more charging locations than petrol stations, it is still the case that in particular areas—Thirsk and Malton is perhaps one such example—the charging is not good enough. One issue that I have come across, as I am sure has my hon. Friend, is machines that require sign-up to a membership system or particular requirements in advance, preventing me from charging up. He will be pleased to hear that we intend to enforce, particularly on rapid chargers, a system whereby it has to be possible for people to walk up and pay contactlessly for the energy that goes into their car, without signing up to a particular scheme in advance. We have taken powers to enforce that system and I hope it will make his drive easier, as well as mine and everybody else’s who switches to an electric car.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These powers have existed in London forever. They prevent, for example, box junctions from being blocked up, along with a number of other things. As he rightly says, we intend to extend the powers throughout the country and I will report back to the House on that shortly.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the impact on aviation, which has been enormous, but so has the support, and that is often not recognised. If I may detail it, there has been £1.8 billion of support through the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility, which easyJet and others have used; £283 million has come from the coronavirus job retention scheme; and 56,400 staff have been furloughed, with the salaries that have been paid worth well north of £1 billion. When those figures are added up, there has been an enormous amount of support for the sector. We are working with it every day and the best thing we can do is to open up the routes, which is dependent on the progress of the virus and the progress of technology to help us beat the virus.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
Grant Shapps
That is an incredibly important subject. The good news, which the hon. Lady may have missed, is that during my time as Secretary of State I have put several million pounds into precisely this issue of audio-visual on buses. I will certainly write to her with the details, and I will also arrange for her to meet the buses Minister.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
This Conservative Government are putting unprecedented levels of investment into the Highways England strategic road network. The A64 Hopgrove roundabout upgrade is one project that is vital not only to my constituents but to people from West Yorkshire and beyond who suffer in the queues. Will the Secretary of State give me an indication that this project is still in the programme and of when we are likely to see spades in the ground?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is right about the £27.4 billion we are investing in the road investment strategy 2 programme to upgrade and build roads fit for the 21st century. There was very effective lobbying on the roundabout, and I will certainly come back to him in writing to provide more of an update.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I know that you, Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State and the whole House will share my grief about the fatal Stonehaven tragedy and the environmental damage wrought by the Llangennech derailment. It seems that the Government have finally listened to the Labour party and look to be ending their failed franchise model. Given the many billions of taxpayer funds that this will cost, it is simply unacceptable that we have to read about these agreements piecemeal in newspapers. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, perhaps the Secretary of State can enlighten us as to when he will make a full statement to this House outlining the future of rail. Will he also confirm what percentage of contracts, especially for HS2, will be going to UK suppliers?
Grant Shapps
There is a lot to cover there, but I will try to make it brief. The hon. Gentleman is right about Stonehaven. I went to the scene of the tragedy—I was taken over in a helicopter—and it was like a Hornby train set had been thrown up in the air. Our thoughts and prayers go not only to the three who died, but to those who were injured, the emergency workers and the brave people who rescued others—our thoughts are with them all. The House will have noted that I issued the Network Rail interim report on Stonehaven a week or two back, which comes to some very important interim conclusions. I will update the House further with the full report shortly.
As for the ending of the emergency measures agreements, I hope the House will understand that it is not possible to conduct negotiations with nine different operating companies in public—I cannot do that from the Dispatch Box. As he knows, the EMAs come to an end shortly, so I will of course be coming back to the House. I would disbelieve everything that you read in the newspapers; I do not think I have read a single thing that relates to what is actually happening. I will return to the House in due course to update it on precisely what is happening, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can doubt our commitment to rail—the £3.5 billion we have put in so far, and indeed our support for HS2, which he mentions.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Speaker's Statement
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I would like to make a short statement about the failure of the pass readers in the Division Lobbies last night. As colleagues will know, all four pass readers in the Division Lobbies stopped working and we had to switch to roll-call voting. I have now received a report on what went wrong, and I can inform colleagues that the failure was due to human error. The contractors involved have offered their apologies, and I am assured that urgent steps are being taken to prevent such a mistake from occurring again. I thank all colleagues for coping so well with the switch, and I especially thank the Doorkeepers for their help. I know that there are alternatives to using this system of Divisions that we are currently using, and I will continue to discuss the use of alternatives with the Leader of the House and other Members concerned.
I also wish to make a short statement about the transfer of oral questions and the timeliness of written answers. This is, of course, the responsibility of the answering Department concerned. However, I note that some hon. Members tabling questions for the Ministry of Defence for Monday on matters relating to the welfare of veterans have had their questions transferred, while others have not. What makes it worse is that this does look like political interference or at least political bias; I take this very seriously. This makes it hard for hon. Members, and the Table Office in assisting them. In the current case, the hon. Members whose questions have been transferred will be called to ask supplementaries to the questions not transferred, so they will not be disadvantaged. However, I hope Departments will give careful consideration to the principles of consistency and fairness in reaching decisions on transfers. I also wish to restate my plea for Departments to ensure that all hon. Members receive timely and substantive answers to their written questions; I do not expect lip service to be paid to Members who were elected to serve their constituencies.
I am sure that both the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House will keep an eye on these two matters, and I know that the Leader and the shadow Leader take this very seriously as well, so I do hope Ministers are listening.
Business of the House
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 21 September—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 3).
Tuesday 22 September—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 4).
Wednesday 23 September—Second Reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, followed by motion relating to proxy voting.
Thursday 24 September—General debate on the situation in Yemen, followed by general debate on the settlement and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, followed by general debate on the Rohingya humanitarian crisis and the effects of the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 September—Private Member’s Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 September will include:
Monday 28 September—Remaining stages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 29 September—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 30 September—Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill, followed by motion under the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the renewal of temporary provisions, followed by all stages of the Sentencing Bill [Lords], followed by debate on motions relating to planning.
Thursday 1 October—Proceedings on a Bill relating to social security benefits uprating.
Friday 2 October—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and you, Mr Speaker, for the statement you made on those two issues. I have to say that what happened yesterday was unacceptable, and I hope we can all sit down and talk about one or two of the incidents. I, too, want to place on record my thanks to the Clerk of the House, the House staff who managed to switch to a different system and the Doorkeepers who reminded us that we were on television.
If that was not enough, I do not know when the Government are going to make a statement about the chaos and the warning about the queues of lorries that will take place in Kent. Some 7,000 lorries will take two days to get through. More sites are being planned, such as the Waterbrook Park site behind the MOJO site, and local people know nothing about what is going on. A coronavirus test centre was abruptly closed to make way for a customs check. Staff were told out of the blue that it would be closing. When are we going to have a statement on what is going to happen in Kent after 31 December? Mr Speaker, to paraphrase Joni Mitchell, they paved the garden of England and put up a lorry park.
It is interesting that the following week, on Monday 28 and Tuesday 29 September, there are further days for the conclusion of the Internal Market Bill; I thought it would all be over this week so that the Prime Minister could go to party conference and wave a piece of paper in the air saying, “Oh, we have Brexit done.” It was the Government who signed the agreement, with the protocol, on 9 January and have now done what looks like a handbrake turn. To paraphrase what happened on the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was a U-turn so big people could see it from space—perhaps from the moon, even.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House tweeted:
“Starmer’s Socialists still suck up to Brussels.”
As I said, it has nothing to do with Brexit. What we are doing is sucking up to the rule of law. The Law Society president has said that that is non-negotiable. He said that clauses 41-45:
“Represent a direct challenge to the rule of law,”
and he is urging hon. Members to vote against it.
The Leader of the House will know that we are celebrating 10 years since Pope Emeritus Benedict’s visit. In his speech, the Pope said that the separation of powers in this country is “an inspiration” and so is our,
“respect for the rule of law”.
Those are the words in his speech; I urge the Leader of the House to read them. This country has an internationally renowned reputation for legal services and as a place for the administration of justice, and that is all going to change. We have a law officer who has just recently resigned.
Can we have a debate on saving British businesses? The Leader of the House will know that the founder of ARM has written to the Prime Minister to stop the sale to Nvidia.
He said it was
“an issue of national economic sovereignty…Surrendering UK’s most powerful trade weapon to the US is making Britain a…vassal state.”
Has the Leader of the House heard that phrase before? He has failed to act in the public interest. It is a powerful letter and the Government should take a golden share in ARM. Could we have a statement on the negotiations and ensure that a business such as that will put the interests of the British people first, rather than being used as a powerful trade weapon for the United States?
I know there is a health statement later, but where was the chair of the test and trace programme? She has made no statement since 19 August. Public Health England has been abolished. We have had mixed messages. Do the Government really think that people without symptoms are going to have a test? The number of tests returned within 24 hours has fallen from 68% to 8%. It seems to be all “talk, talk” and not “test, test”.
More importantly, I want to use the Leader of the House’s good offices, if he could speak to Ministers in the Department of Work and Pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) had a ten-minute rule Bill in July on how people who are terminally ill are treated in the benefits system. She asked a question and she was told by the Minister at the time that the outcome of the review would be done shortly. The Minister said on Monday he will have it done “as quickly as possible.” Could we have a statement as soon as possible, hopefully next week, on what is happening with scrapping the six-month rule?
I am sure that the Leader of the House has already seen the 250 to 300 statutory instruments that are coming down the line. Could he ensure that there will be proper scrutiny of those issues?
It was the fourth birthday that Sherry Izadi, the wife of Anousheh, has had without him. Anousheh also needs diplomatic protection. Nazanin had that terrible prospect of not knowing whether she was on trial. I know the Foreign Secretary has been to America, and I hope that in some way we are nearer to a solution, as the Defence Secretary has suggested. Of course, let us not forget Luke Symons in Yemen; I hope there will be a statement next week in the Back-Bench debate.
I hope the Leader of the House will join me in thanking the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew)—I forgot to mention him earlier—for standing in so wonderfully for him last week and also Marcial Boo, the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, who left last Friday. I thank him for his six years. He has made many changes and says that he has left IPSA in a better place. He never failed to deal with queries on behalf of my colleagues. He saw three elections, winding up offices and setting up new offices. We thank him for his service and wish him well in the future.
Finally, happy new year, shanah tovah, to the Jewish community. I know that it has been difficult to have the celebrations, but maybe Rosh Hashanah next year will be back to normal.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I also wish the Jewish community a happy new year? Of course, celebrations are difficult this year under the regulation.
May I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and Deputy Chief Whip? I was worried that last week he was far too good and that this week hon. Members would all be clamouring for him. Indeed, I fear that they are, but are too polite and kindly to admit it to my face, although I have no doubt that the call will go out on Twitter that Members want the Deputy Chief Whip.
I also add my thanks to Marcial Boo, who carried out a very difficult task with dignity and patience. He was always available to Members to hear representations and was always keen to put things right. I think he did very good public service in possibly one of the most testing jobs, in which there are 650 critics and very few defenders. I think he did it really admirably.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is right once again to raise the question of British nationals detained overseas, including Anousheh Ashoori and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is good news that the second trial has so far been deferred, and I hope that it will not take place. The detainees in Yemen can of course be raised in the debate coming up next week. The Government take this issue very seriously, but as the right hon. Lady knows, there are limitations to what the Government can do with a foreign nation that is determined to behave in the way that Iran behaves.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the scrutiny of statutory instruments. She will notice in the business that I announced that we are making time available for debate of statutory instruments where the Opposition prayed against them. It is the will of the Government, the habit of the Government and, indeed, the requirement of Parliament that where debates are requested, wherever it is possible and feasible in terms of the management of business, we will do our best to facilitate them and ensure proper scrutiny. That is of course up to Members as well. Some statutory instrument Committees do not take very long to perform their scrutiny, and we should all look to our own consciences as to how much we wish to debate statutory instruments when they come before Committees.
The right hon. Lady raises the point about the Department for Work and Pensions, and the terminally ill and the promise of an answer. I will follow that up for her; it is a reasonable request to have made. I will ask the Secretary of State to ensure a written response as to when we can expect an answer, even if we do not have the answer itself.
I am afraid that is where the sweetness and light has to end, because some of the other things that the right hon Lady said were really rather more contentious and have to be disputed. The UKIM Bill is a really important piece of legislation. It builds on section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which made it clear that the law in this country is made by Parliament. That has been our historic constitutional position. The Prime Minister himself has pointed out that the EU in these negotiations is not acting with good faith. If we are negotiating with somebody who is not behaving in good faith, we have to protect our interests, and we have a fundamental duty to protect the Good Friday agreement. It is absolutely clear in the Good Friday agreement that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without agreement from the people of Northern Ireland. Putting tariffs on, banning food going from GB to Northern Ireland, would be such a fundamental change. It is our duty to stop that happening, because it is our duty to protect the Good Friday agreement and to support the United Kingdom. A fine piece of legislation has been crafted, and is being piloted through the House of Commons, that will do precisely that. It is the right law, it is good law and it will protect the position of the people of Britain.
The Government have consistently ensured that provisions are being made in Kent for whatever may be the result on 1 January next year. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and the Government are continuing to do that.
As regards testing, one has to be reasonable. I was not here last week because I was awaiting a test result, and that was quite right; people who have family members who have developed symptoms must self-isolate. The right hon. Lady’s right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, also did the right thing in self-isolating until the test result came back. We all have an obligation to try to stop a dangerous disease spreading, but we have gone from a disease that nobody knew about a few months ago to one where nearly a quarter of a million people a day can be tested, and the Prime Minister expects that to rise to half a million by the end of the October. Instead of this endless carping, with people saying it is difficult to get them, we should be celebrating this phenomenal success of the British nation in getting up to a quarter of a million tests for a disease that nobody knew about until earlier in the year. That is a success of our society, our health experts and our Administration. Yes, there is demand for more; yes, demand exceeds supply, but the supply is increasing and what has been done is really rather remarkable and something we should be proud of.
Finally, on the Division yesterday, well that is the great thing about being here physically: we had a fall-back plan, so we could all get through the Lobbies. Just think if we had all been remote: the business would have fallen and we would not have got the business through the House. [Interruption.] There is some cackling from the Opposition Benches. They seem to think that when technology fails you need even more technology, whereas as actually good, trusty turning up and saying “Aye” or “Nay” worked extraordinarily well.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I have one small issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew): he did not go back before the 16th century. I do wish my right hon. Friend to say a little bit about King Alfred. As he knows, earthquakes in Somerset are extremely rare, but there was a big one last December, just before Somerset County Council launched its bid to become a unitary. It made houses shake across the region. Was it the ghost of King Alfred rotating in his grave over the petty-mindedness and stupidity of the county council? Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate? The plan proposed by the district councils to reunite our wonderful county of Somerset and allow our famous king to rest in peace is worthy of Government time.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May 878, the Battle of Edington: it is from that battle and the defeat of Guthrum that the British nation, the United Kingdom, was founded. Without that, we would probably all be speaking Danish. It is thanks to King Alfred, who of course laid his plans on the Somerset levels. We should always remember that our great nation comes from Somerset, and Somerset should always be at the centre of our nation’s thinking. It is one great united country. Ted Heath’s chopping it up in 1974 caused me dyspepsia as a five-year-old and continues to cause me dyspepsia now. Somerset is a great county, and the more united it is the better.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is good to be here, Mr Speaker, after so many months of absence to discuss matters with the Leader of the House in person.
I begin with your very welcome statement, Mr Speaker, about what happened last night. The Leader of the House ought to be a little less nonchalant in his approach. What we presented to the public and the world last night was quite an unedifying spectacle, to be honest. The conga line going through this House involving Members, many of whom clearly had some difficulty with social distancing, was not a good example to set. When we had the remote voting system, it did not fail; it worked perfectly well on every occasion it was put to the test. It is a system that was fit for purpose, and as he well knows, the Procedure Committee has recommended that whilst the pandemic persists we should go back to that form of voting, which is not only secure but safe and allows people to vote without coming into proximity of one another. I hope that when we discuss these matters next Wednesday at the debate he has announced on proxy voting, we will be able to consider alternatives as well, and I hope we will be able to take some action on this prior to the present arrangements running out at the beginning of November.
Secondly, I invite the Leader of the House to comment on the resignation yesterday of Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, who reached a point where he found it impossible to continue to serve in the Government because of their intention to proceed with breaking international law. Does he think he will be successful in finding a qualified Law Officer in Scotland who will be prepared to countenance breaking the law in the future?
Finally, I want to ask the Leader of the House about the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, both of which we will discuss in Backbench Business debates this afternoon. Members across the House who will be participating in those very well-subscribed debates look to the Government to bring forward proposals for what will happen after 31 October, when many businesses will have to remain closed by Government order. If that is the case, it seems to me that the public purse has to assist them in getting to the other side of this pandemic. It is not enough to simply close down the scheme and say, “That’s it.”
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a pleasure that we are back face to face. When the hon. Gentleman appeared remotely, he looked like one of the rather more bad-tempered Old Testament prophets, but face to face, we see his natural joviality shining through. He is very welcome back, and I am sorry that I was not here last week.
Yesterday, the votes worked—that is the key. Had the technology failed remotely, we would simply not have been able to get the business through. It is proving that this House is back to work as the rest of the country is coming back to work. We are leading by example, and we should be proud of that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about my noble Friend Lord Keen, who is a distinguished lawyer. He has indeed left the Government, and I am sure that there are many brilliant Scottish lawyers who can be found and asked to fulfil the role of Advocate General. The pool of wisdom in Scottish legal circles is very deep, and I have absolute confidence that we will find someone of comparable genius to the noble Lord to take the role that has been vacated.
The issue here is a very important one: do we defend the national interest of the United Kingdom when the EU is acting in bad faith, as the Prime Minister has said? The answer is yes, we must defend our national interest and our United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman does not want the United Kingdom to exist. That is a perfectly respectable position for him to take, and it is put forward by his party in Scotland, but it is not the position of the Government or, indeed, of the majority of people in the United Kingdom, who have an affection, an attraction, a devotion and a patriotism towards their country and want it to succeed. Its success will be determined by laws passed in this House.
As regards the job support scheme, it is worth reminding the House what has been done by taxpayers. There has been £160 billion of support from taxpayers across the United Kingdom, with £35 billion on the furlough scheme, £8.5 billion for 3 million self-employed people, £15 billion on coronavirus business interruption loans for small and medium-sized enterprises and large businesses, and £35 billion on over 1 million bounce back loans. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, but taxpayers’ money is not unlimited, so the schemes cannot go on forever, but I am sure that the debates later today will be informative.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
May I also wish shana tova to the Jewish community in my constituency and across the globe?
Apprenticeships are a fantastic way for young people to not only get into work but get a valuable qualification in the process. Being a keen supporter of apprenticeships, I have recently taken on two to work in my Radcliffe office, so that we are not only helping constituents but helping young people to earn and learn. Given the Prime Minister’s announcement that young people should be guaranteed an apprenticeship—which is much needed, given the increase in youth unemployment during the pandemic—will the Government lead by example and commit to offering as many young people as possible apprenticeship programmes across all areas of government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right and asks an important question. I am glad to say that my own office has a good track record in this. We have an apprentice at the moment, and another member of the team was an apprentice before being promoted to a full-time appointment. I hope the Government will indeed follow my hon. Friend’s suggestion. In his plan for jobs, the Chancellor announced measures to ensure that young people have access to an offer of work-based training, work experience and training programmes, but apprenticeships are an excellent way of getting people on the jobs ladder, and the Government fully support them.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I am glad to see the Leader of the House safely back in his place, and I hope he recovers from his dyspepsia quite soon. I thank him for announcing the business for next week, including the Backbench business for Thursday 24 September, although it is a bit regrettable that we will not get Thursday 1 October, as we have just under 30 remaining applications, including some that are time-sensitive for late September and early October.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will shortly make a statement introducing significant restrictions on the people of Northumberland, Durham and Tyne and Wear, including my constituency of Gateshead, to combat the considerable growth in the number of positive cases identified in those areas, despite local testing capacity having been reduced, as I have previously mentioned. Will the Leader of the House urge the Health Secretary to make regular statements to the House on the situation, as it is fast-moving and serious? Restrictions on time preclude many Members who would want to from putting questions to him when we get the opportunity.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that there is Backbench business both this Thursday and next Thursday. I give a reminder that it is still the intention to restore Westminster Hall from 5 October, so that will provide more time for Backbench business. The Health Secretary answered an urgent question earlier this week and is making a statement later. Who is on the call lists is really a matter for you, Mr Speaker, rather than for me, but I think the Health Secretary has been admirable in his willingness to come to the House to explain what is going on and to ensure that people are kept up-to-date.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I trust that my right hon. Friend will be very much looking forward to the county championship final next Wednesday between Somerset and Essex. I think I did predict in this place a few months ago that the championship would be a struggle between those two great counties, but I did not think it would come down to a showdown at Lords in the way it is. I look forward to discussing that with him next week.
I would like to touch on the issue of pet theft. We have seen a significant growth in pet theft over lockdown. Our pets have never been more important to us. For many, they have been our companions throughout lockdown. Pet theft continues to grow and there is a strong sense among many campaigners that the penalties are not there to deter pet theft from growing in the way it has done. There is a petition of well over 100,000 people who would like the issue to be debated in Westminster Hall. We have had a virtual meeting so far, because we could not have that debate, but would my right hon. Friend commit to bringing back Westminster Hall debates as soon as possible, so that pet theft and many other critically important issues can be thoroughly debated by us Members?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is an issue that concerns people. I can tell the House that recently I bought a cocker spaniel for one of my children, which is a very popular addition to the Rees-Mogg household. I confess it was for my little girl, Mary, who has been asking for a dog for many years, and I finally gave in. The thought of it being stolen is one that I know would be of great concern.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The dog’s name is Daisy. It was named by my daughter, as Members would expect. I had all sorts of extravagant names for the dog, as Members might also expect, but my daughter held sway in the matter. The issue is of concern to people. Pets are being stolen—I am aware of that—and there will be an opportunity after 5 October to have debates on this type of matter in Westminster Hall.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
This year private schools saw their proportion of top A-level grades double. Does the Leader of the House accept that it is a disgrace that 60% of young people at Barnsley College saw their A-levels downgraded, compared with 40% nationally? Can we have a Government statement about how they will avoid this scandal happening ever again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady calls for it never to happen again, and we hope that people will be back to doing exams and that therefore grading will not be done by assessment in future. That is certainly the plan. I obviously do not know the specific circumstances of Barnsley College, but I will take the matter up with the Secretary of State for Education and try to get her a fuller answer.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The BBC is a fantastic employer. One of its employees recently received a £1 million-a-year pay rise, paid for by the great British public. However, the residents in Ashfield were not consulted over the pay rise. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a debate in this House so that the people of our great country can have a choice over whether or not their hard-earned cash should be used to subsidise BBC presenters’ £1 million salaries?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As a public service broadcaster funded by the licence fee—i.e. taxpayers—the BBC has a responsibility to lead the way in promoting equality in the workplace, ensuring overall pay restraint and value for money. That is why the Government requested that the names of all BBC staff and talent paid more than £150,000 be published. But there was one thing that horrified, appalled and shocked me about the list that came out: the name of Jonathan Agnew did not appear higher up the list. I could not believe that there were people being paid more than £1 million and that one of them was not our leading cricket commentator, Aggers himself. This is a great injustice, and I hope that somebody will request a Backbench Business debate to try to put this right. Fairness for Aggers!
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
From cricket to football—yesterday, the chair of the national league wrote to the Culture Secretary asking for permission to start the new season on 3 October. National league clubs such as Bath City Football Club are such important community facilities for people of all ages. They are not our shiny premier league clubs, which get income from TV deals; they depend on their supporters to physically attend. If these national league clubs cannot reopen in October due to a Government decision on covid guidance, all these clubs will go under. Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Cabinet, particularly to the Culture Secretary, to make sure that these clubs can reopen in October, while also being covid-safe? I understand that they made very special plans over the summer to make all provisions to make it safe for people to attend. Perhaps face coverings could be suggested in those circumstances. But it is vital that these clubs can actually reopen and that supporters can see the games in person from October.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady makes a very fair point. Local clubs are important—they are important community facilities—and they do not have the huge amounts of money of the premier league clubs. In my own constituency, both Paulton and Keynsham have very good football teams and it is going to be difficult without a clear path as to how they can reopen. The Secretary of State will be answering questions next Thursday and I am sure he will be able to give more information on this.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the shadow Leader of the House are both as committed as anybody here to ensure that we change the culture of Parliament for the better. I would like him to please update the House on where we are on the 18-month review of the complaints scheme. In particular, when I met with him on this subject, we discussed the fact that it takes too long for a complaint to go from the initial phone call to the helpline through to whether it is upheld or refused. We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. So can he say what he is doing to ensure that this House is putting our own house in order and being the role model to the rest of the country that we all want to be?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that she did to improve and change the culture, because she really drove this forward with considerable energy to the benefit of Parliament. I think that we are all agreed that we need a new culture and that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament. We should be a place of excellence where people feel safe and secure in their employment and where people are treated properly. As regards the 18-month review, there is a paper in front of both the Lords and Commons Commissions to be considered to try to get this review done and done speedily. There have inevitably been some delays because of the coronavirus, but I entirely agree with her on the issue of speediness when people make a complaint. It is unfair both on the complainant and on the person accused if inquiries drag out indefinitely. She is right to raise that and I hope that it will be part of the inquiry—the 18-month review—though obviously that is not for me to decide because it will be independent.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The statutory requirement for the House to debate fuel poverty annually has not been met since 2018. Will the Leader of the House kindly inform us when Ministers plan to rectify this situation with a debate in Government time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are enormous pressures on Government time, but there are many ways of raising things in debate and bringing them forward. Parliament allocates its time in accordance with its Standing Orders and the requirements of the law, and any statutory requirements that there are to have debates will be upheld.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, may we have a debate in Government time on the salaries paid to BBC presenters—£1.75 million and £1.3 million, to mention just two, and for what? Yet the BBC has the audacity now to charge 75-year-olds the licence fee. These salaries are outrageous and shameful, and it is about time the Government put an end to them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Slightly warming to my earlier theme, I am not entirely sure why a retired footballer is paid more than Vic Marks, a distinguished Somerset cricketer who regularly appears as an expert summariser on “Test Match Special”. I would have thought that he was deserving of much more money than a retired association footballer.
I do think that the BBC has been unfair on pensioners in requiring them to pay the licence fee. The hope was that it would not do that. It is basically stealing the Ovaltine from pensioners’ night-time drink by charging them the licence fee, and it is losing licence fee payers: it has lost a quarter of a million licence fee payers in the last year, as people vote with their feet. I think the BBC needs to pay attention to what my hon. Friend says. When it charges some of the least well-off in our society and gives the money to some of the most well-off in our society, there are people who will rightly question that—especially when it is not giving it to cricketers.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
In my constituency in the last week, we have been desperately trying to avoid a local lockdown—to be honest, with little help from the Government. Last week, I took it upon myself to work with a local charity, Sindh Doctors Association UK, to deliver some IT equipment to my lovely old primary school, which was gratefully received for distribution to disadvantaged students.
Just last year, the Office for National Statistics said that around 700,000 young people, including those at secondary school but not those at primary school, do not have proper access to the internet, or a tablet or computer. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on the provision of IT equipment, including tablets, routers and all the other equipment that young people will need if our country is heading into further localised lockdowns or even, as rumoured today, a potential national lockdown? Our pupils have already suffered enough in the last year, and we want the Government to take every opportunity to ensure that they do not fail again to deliver such technology, which they said they would deliver but then did not, to so many young people.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about ensuring that there is support for young people who do not have access to the necessary technology. There is a £350 million national tutoring programme, which is a package of targeted funding for the most disadvantaged pupils to try to ensure that they can catch up on anything that they have missed, in addition to a £100 million fund to boost remote education, which is obviously helping with the technology. The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point; I think it is worth asking for an Adjournment debate on this issue, but the Government are taking steps in a direction that I hope he will approve of.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
A few weeks ago, residents in Wednesbury and Tipton suffered incredibly bad flooding, which saw many houses washed out and possessions lost. This is not the first time that that has happened in those communities, and many people now cannot get flood insurance. I managed, luckily, to speak to Severn Trent Water, which raised with me the fact that most of the time it is not consulted on potential flooding issues with new developments. I have been somewhat concerned by the lead flood authority’s attitude to engagement with Severn Trent on trying to resolve these issues for the long term. May we have a debate in Government time on flood protection, particularly in the Black Country, an area that is often overlooked when these issues are discussed?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government absolutely recognise the devastating impact that flooding can have on communities across the country; it is very tough on those affected. The Government are acting to drive down flood risk and announced a £5.2 billion expenditure programme of taxpayers’ money to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years. However, the point that my hon. Friend makes about the lack of co-ordination is important, and I am happy to take that up with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on his behalf to get him a fuller answer as to why these engagements are not taking place.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Last year’s “State of Nature” report found that 41% of UK species are in decline, with one in 10 threatened with extinction, and just this week a new report from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds noted that we have seen a “lost decade for nature”, with the Government failing to reach 17 out of 20 biodiversity targets they signed up to 10 years ago. May we therefore have an urgent debate on how the Government plan to turn that around, including by introducing legally binding targets to restore nature by scrapping the reckless £27 billion road building plan, which is already subject to judicial review, and by restoring the funding to organisations such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, whose budgets have been slashed by 30% in the past 10 years alone?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is very important that we have roads and that people can get about the country. The road building plan will help the economy. It will be a boost to the economy and a boost to jobs. The last thing we should be doing in the current crisis is making it harder for people to get jobs and for the economy to grow. However, the Government have a very good record on dealing with environmental matters. They have committed to the net zero target by 2050. Perhaps most importantly, we will take back control of our agricultural policy from 1 January and will be able to ensure that expenditure in that area goes towards protecting diversity and the environment, rather than being squandered on EU-sponsored schemes we are not in favour of and burdening our farmers with bureaucracy. Things are getting very much better thanks to the Conservatives and Brexit.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Residents in the village of Long Crendon in my constituency currently face the prospect of losing their GP surgery and being asked to go to a village poorly served by public transport that is at least an £11 taxi ride away. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend for a debate in Government time to explore the provision of rural GP services, so that, as the Government deliver on our commitment for 50 million extra GP appointments, rural communities keep local, village-based GP services?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Living as I do in a small village, I am well aware of the importance of rural GP services and the need for them to be accessible by people living in rural areas who do not necessarily have any public transport and need to be within reasonable distance of a surgery. However, there are countervailing arguments about having larger centres which may be able to provide a higher level of service and more appointments. There is a balance within that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue, which is very suitable for a Backbench Business debate, because it may well be of interest across the House.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Almost a year ago, I challenged the Prime Minister that his Brexit withdrawal agreement would not only put a customs and regulatory border down the Irish sea, but weaken our Union. Because he is not a details man, and without reading it line by line, he proceeded, amid much fanfare, to sign the agreement, extol its virtues as the best deal and an oven-ready deal, and impose it into law on a three-line Whip. Does the Leader of the House agree, now the Prime Minister has woken up and wants to break international law, that while the Prime Minister may need a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to supposedly protect him from the European Union, what we actually need is a Bill that protects our country and its people from the seemingly limitless ineptitude and incompetence of this Prime Minister and his Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman may perhaps overstate his case just a little. It seems to me that the withdrawal agreement is a very good agreement, but it depended on the good faith of the other side. Had that been forthcoming, there was no question of tariffs on goods that were going to Northern Ireland and were going to stay there. That was provided for. There was no question of food not going to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the obduracy, the stubbornness, the pig-headedness of the European Union has put us in a position where we have to protect our interests. In terms of legislation around this Government, the greatest voice we had was that of the British people and they decided just last December who they wanted to run their affairs. They decided they wanted a Conservative Government who would deliver a departure from the European Union in the British national interest. That is what is being doing and that is why so many people across the country in historically socialist seats decided to put their faith in the Conservatives.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I was very cheered up at the beginning of business questions when I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the Deputy Leader of the House, sitting next to my right hon. Friend. Last week, my hon. Friend undertook to go round to No. 10 and tell the Prime Minister off for making announcements to the media before making them to the House. Will the Leader of the House take that a little further? The rule of six, which limits the British people to gatherings of no more six, is a major change to the way this country works. Should not Parliament discuss those major changes first and vote on them? Could we have a statement next week, outlining that in future, before a major change in regulations relating to covid is made, an amendable motion is debated and approved in the House before the regulations come in? Perhaps it would be useful if the Deputy Leader of the House made that statement.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I apologise to my hon. Friend, but there was some problem with the technology. He was kindly helping my argument that technology is not the answer to every possible problem and that sometimes good old-fashioned turning up in person is helpful. However, I got the broad impression that my hon. Friend is not very pleased. I wish to correct the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) did not undertake to go round to see the Prime Minister and tell him what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) wanted him to say. I think that probably, had he answered the question at greater length—he was under pressure of time—he would have said that was going to go round to Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister what a wonderful job he is doing and how lucky we are to have such inspired leadership, with which I hope my hon. Friend would concur. However, I can assure him that there will be a debate. A debate is scheduled on the continuation of the Coronavirus Act 2020 provisions on Wednesday 30 September. That will be the opportunity for those points to be raised.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Parents held vigils around the UK yesterday, including my constituent Rachel Rankmore, whose son, Bailey Williams, has very severe epilepsy. They were holding those vigils because they are still paying thousands of pounds in private prescriptions to get hold of medical cannabis. In Northern Ireland, the Administration are helping financially. May we have a debate on why that is not happening in the rest of the UK?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is always great sadness about children who are suffering from these very difficult conditions and questions about the drugs that are made available and who pays for them. Obviously, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has a responsibility to investigate that, but I will happily pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the incompetently run Lib Dem council in Sutton is again not listening to Carshalton and Wallington residents, this time about road schemes, which are causing travel chaos across the borough. May we have a debate in this place about those road schemes and the way councils should consult residents properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right. The Lib Dems hate the motorist, of course, and want to make life as difficult as possible for motorists whenever they can. The emergency active travel fund, which was announced on 9 May, comprised £225 million of funding in two tranches for local authorities. The local authorities have the responsibility for how that money is spent, but the Government will ensure that if they do not demonstrate that it is providing improvements, the funding will be withheld.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is estimated that around 320,000 private renters have fallen into rent arrears during the pandemic. Many have lost work, fallen through gaps in support or struggled on reduced earnings on furlough. On Sunday, the evictions ban ends, putting hundreds of thousands at risk of eviction and tens of thousands at risk of homelessness. For private renters in Coventry South and across the country, will the Leader of the House give Government time to urgently discuss measures to stop the crisis, such as extending the evictions ban for at least a year, scrapping no-fault evictions, as promised in the Tory manifesto, and cancelling rent arrears?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Nearly £1 billion of support has been provided for renters, increasing the generosity of housing benefit and universal credit so that the local housing allowance covers at least 30% of market rents in local areas. Measures to ensure that no tenant has been forced out do indeed come to an end on 20 September, but landlords have not been able to evict for the past six months and there is a balance to be struck between landlords and tenants, and the Government have spent a great deal of taxpayers’ money trying to support tenants.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Earlier this summer, I spent time campaigning to get my constituents in Oadby and Wigston out of our local lockdown, and nobody wants to go back into those kinds of measures, but unfortunately the number of coronavirus cases, particularly in Oadby, has gone dramatically up. I have told the Health Secretary that any new measures must be extremely well targeted and proportionate, so that they do not affect people’s businesses and livelihoods. May we also have a debate on how we best handle local restrictive measures?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that restrictions are precise and aimed at the areas most at risk. Local outbreaks require local action and may be a feature of our lives for some time to come, but the Government’s aim is to enable as many people as possible to live their lives as close to normal as possible. I hope that he will have an opportunity, depending on the call list, to quiz the Secretary of State for Health in a moment.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
On 16 July, the Youth Violence Commission, which I chair, launched its final report and recommendations. I sent a copy to all Members and peers the following week. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister has read the report, and will he grant us a debate on youth violence so that we can discuss these urgent recommendations and hear the Prime Minister’s response?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously, youth violence is a very important issue, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing it to the attention of the House and on the work that she has done. This is very suitable for a Backbench Business debate, and I imagine that there would be considerable support across the House for that. It would be bold of me to tell the Prime Minister what he ought to read, but I will certainly ensure that the copy she sent him has arrived.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
For more than half a century and throughout all parts of the United Kingdom, historic counties have been divided, merged, replaced and abolished, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know only too well with his beloved Somerset. May we please have a statement from the Cabinet Office on respecting our traditional counties, perhaps via the lord lieutenancies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Lieutenancies Act 1997 sets out that the ceremonial counties will be the historic counties, and it was a rather splendid Act because it reunited Somerset and other historic counties that had been bowdlerised by Ted Heath’s Administration. The historic counties are an important element of British history. They support the identity and cultures of many of our local communities, giving people a sense of belonging, pride and community spirit, and I hope that the counties will be recognised. As I am addressing an hon. Friend from Sussex, I think it is worth reminding him that the conversion of Sussex to Christianity was delayed because the woodland was so thick that it was hard for the converters to get through, but I am glad that he stands up for his county.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I do not know how familiar the Leader of the House is with the concept of no recourse to public funds, but it has resulted in one of my constituents being left close to destitution while caring for her grandchildren after their mother died of cancer, because she cannot get her status sorted with the Home Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a Minister to look into this specific case, and may we have a debate on the wider issue so that a Minister can come to the Dispatch Box to explain how this Government can continue to justify their inhumane, hostile and violent immigration policy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise a constituency issue of this kind on the Floor of the House, and I will certainly take it up with the Home Office and ensure that he gets an answer.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I welcome the sentencing White Paper that the Justice Secretary introduced yesterday, as it restates the Government’s commitment to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. However, it is now nearly three years since the Government first announced this change, and the families waiting for justice have waited long enough, so will the Leader of the House tell us exactly when this legislation will be introduced, to give the bereaved families the justice they deserve?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Lady for the campaigning she has done on this important issue and for her success in developing policy in this area. Her influence and questioning have helped the Government to come to our policy decisions, which, as she knows, the Lord Chancellor announced yesterday. As regards the precise timing of the Bill, I cannot give an absolute answer on the day it will take place, but the White Paper sets out a serious Government priority. It will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows and the Bill has been written, and that is in the not too distant future. I hope that that answer is at least encouraging.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister yesterday refused to rule out changes to the International Development Act 2002, may we have a debate in this Chamber about the implications for international development assistance for the poorest people in the world? Who in the House will actually be scrutinising what is happening?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The House decides how to set up its own scrutiny, and Select Committees are a matter for the House. The scrutiny will continue as it currently is, I believe, until the end of the year and then the House will have to come to a decision.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Tomorrow, I will announce my Angel awards recognising the people, organisations, businesses and public bodies that have done so much to support our communities across Blaydon in the coronavirus pandemic. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all those people who have done so much, and will the Government bring forward a scheme to recognise people across the country who have gone above and beyond to support their communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Lady for her marvellous initiative. It is important that we thank people and recognise the incredible outpouring of community spirit that there has been during a very difficult time. She is doing absolutely the right thing. It seems to me that if the Government can piggyback on the work that she has been doing, that would not be a foolish thing to do, so I will certainly bring it to the attention of other Ministers.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Every year in England, more than 100,000 people in problem debt attempt to take their own lives. It is complex, and there are a range of factors that lead to somebody in debt becoming suicidal, but research shows that a key factor is receiving intimidating letters from lenders. That is a real concern with millions more people facing debt as a result of the crisis. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Chancellor to make a statement outlining how we make provisions for a small change to the rules contained in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the content of debt letters to simplify the language and signpost people to advice? I understand that could be done quite simply by statutory instrument, and it could save lives.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that should concern the whole House. A great deal of support is available from organisations across the country for people who are in debt that they cannot afford to repay, and the ability of debt counsellors to help debt to be rescheduled and to help to lift the burden from people is there. I agree that it would be helpful if that were more widely known. All of us, as constituency MPs, sometimes point our constituents in that direction. I understand his point about changing the wording. Letters sent out by debt collectors ought not to be threatening. That is quite clear. I understand his point, and I will pass it on to the Chancellor.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I was delighted to see the Government launch a taskforce to reopen Hammersmith bridge in London, the closure of which has been a congestion nightmare for hard-working Londoners, but as part of the levelling-up agenda at the heart of the Government, we need to bridge the gap between London and some of our left-behind communities. On that note, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will display the same strength up north in reopening the Whorlton bridge in my constituency, the closure of which for more than a year has cut off communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I understand that the Whorlton bridge was built in 1831, a year before the Great Reform Act—[Interruption.] No, I wasn’t here at the time. It is a fine example of 19th-century engineering—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says that I am a fine example of 19th-century engineering. I am not quite sure that is entirely true, but I will take it as a compliment. The bridge is the responsibility of Durham County Council, which ought to listen to my hon. Friend. Bridges connect communities and ought to be repaired.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Scotland is a dynamic, forward-looking nation and is ambitious to retake its position on the world stage by adherence to the international rules-based order. When it makes an agreement with a future ally, it will stick to it, by contrast to the way that the Government are behaving this week with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and their ambitions to break international law. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Scottish Government would be perfectly within their rights if, in seeking a section 30 order in preparation for our upcoming referendum, one is not forthcoming, they just decide to carry on regardless?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is an incongruity in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He says, quite rightly, that Scotland is a forward-looking, fine, upstanding nation, but then he wants to kow-tow to the European Union, and take Scotland’s fish and give them all away to the fisherfolk of the European Union. He cannot have it both ways. Either he maintains his pride in Scotland, shared with the United Kingdom, or else he wants to go and be a vassal of the European Union.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
In my constituency, we have a local landmark on a road called Woodmere Avenue, but it is all for the wrong reasons. As cars navigate through it, they get scratched. Local residents feel like they are between a rock and a hard place, or between a post and a scratched car, in the sense that local bureaucracy going back and forth over many years has meant that they have not been able to get this changed. May we have a debate to look at how we can unwrap local issues around bureaucracy so that we do not keep going through a groundhog day of residents requesting change, having to do petitions to try to get change, and then it not happening? Can we please get pavement politics back into government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist. We should be backing the motorist. Driving is a great sign of one’s independence, liberty and exercise of historic freedoms. But local authorities are, quite rightly, independent, so the answer is to campaign to get in a Conservative council.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
On 22 June, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government’s periodic assessment regulations for universal credit were illegal. The next day, the Minister for welfare delivery said that the Government would now begin the process of carefully considering possible solutions. Three months, several written questions and an early-day motion later, there has been no update. Tens of thousands of people are affected by this. One of my constituents has continually had her passported benefits wrongly taken away because of this problem—devastating at any time but especially during covid. Will the Leader of the House therefore speak to the Minister for welfare delivery and encourage him to come before this House to provide a meaningful update on the Government’s plans?
Mr Rees-Mogg
When court cases do not go the Government’s way, it is obviously right that things are considered very carefully. It is worth saying, though, that there has been £9 billion of support for universal credit following the coronavirus crisis. An enormous number of people have received extra support during that period, and the Government have been making the money available to ensure that that happens. But it is only right that when there are court judgments, they are examined carefully.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In common with many Members, I am having trouble getting timely responses to written questions from many Departments. I have about 30 outstanding at the moment, some of which are more than three months old. One in particular, though, will be of interest to all Members, as it relates to preparations for Remembrance Sunday. All Royal British Legion branches up and down the country are beginning to think about what we can do to have a covid-secure Remembrance Sunday, so can we please have a statement from the relevant Minister as a matter of priority?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point about timely ministerial responses. I will confess that I put in an envelope letters outstanding to one Ministry from April, May, June and July in the hope that I might get a reply to them. If I do not get a reply, I will, in due course, tell the House which Ministry it is, but at the moment I will keep that quiet. Remembrance Sunday is one of the great important national days. I have absolutely heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will take it up with the relevant Secretary of State.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that our negotiating position has been strengthened as a result of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill passing its Second Reading. That said, the European Union continues to act in bad faith, and the Government must be prepared for an orderly departure with or without a deal. So can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have made all the necessary preparations in the event that an agreement is not reached next month?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about the UKIM Bill strengthening our hand. We left with a deal in January, and planning for the end of the transition period is well under way, co-ordinated by the XO—Exit Operations—Cabinet Committee, to make sure that we are ready to seize the great opportunities of being outside the single market and the customs union. With the Bill going through Parliament, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will have full legal ability to maintain the sovereignty of our nation and the integrity of our internal market. We have launched a comprehensive communications campaign to make sure that people and businesses know what they need to do to prepare for the end of the transition period. That remains a central priority of the Government and Departments.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
May I first correct the Leader of the House’s assertion, which he repeated again this morning, that those of us who are working from home are somehow not at work? That will certainly be news to my wonderful constituency team, who dealt with a fourfold increase in casework this year without having to set foot in our office.
The Leader of the House says that he wants Parliament to be a safe place for people to work. He must know that some Members of Parliament are making it a more dangerous place by deliberately flouting safe distancing requirements in the Chamber, the voting queues and elsewhere. What steps is he taking to ensure that all MPs set a good example by complying with health and safety requirements in the House, and by being polite to members of staff whose job it is to help keep everybody safe?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s very last point is of fundamental importance. Mr Speaker, both you and I have made it clear to all staff of the House, particularly the Doorkeepers and security people, that they are allowed to remind Members, and all other people on the estate, of the need to maintain social distancing. It would be quite wrong for any Member to be high-handed when asked to remember the requirements of social distancing. I do not think one should be too critical because inevitably, human nature being what it is, things will not always be perfect, but the work that has been done to make this a covid-secure workplace is terrific. There are markings on the floor, things are spaced out and the seats in the Chamber have been limited to ensure that we are covid-safe. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to come down and see how well it is working.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House share my concerns about the safety of women, following accounts of serious medical complications after some women have taken abortion pills at home, as is temporarily allowed during the pandemic? Should we not therefore look to revert as soon as possible to confidential in-person consultations being available for all women before such serious procedures are undertaken?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this deeply troubling issue. It is important that safeguards that used to be in place are put back in place as soon as possible. Of course, anything to do with abortion is not a matter where the Government have a policy; it is a matter for one’s private conscience, but she knows that her conscience and my conscience align on this matter.
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 a few minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus and about our plans to put us in the strongest possible position for this winter. Like many other countries around the world, we are continuing to see a concerning rise in cases, with 3,991 new cases recorded yesterday, and this week the number of patients in mechanical ventilator beds has risen above 100 for the first time since July. The battle against coronavirus is not over, and while we strain every sinew to spring free of its clutches, with winter on the horizon we must prepare, bolster our defences and come together once again against this common foe.
One of our vital lines of defence has been taking targeted action at a local level. We have seen local action work well in some parts of the country, and now we must take further action. We have seen concerning rates of infection in parts of the north-east. Sunderland, for example, now has an incidence rate of 103 positive cases per 100,000 of population, and in South Tyneside, Gateshead and Newcastle the figures are all above 70 per 100,000. As a result, local authorities wrote to me earlier this week asking for tighter restrictions, and we have taken swift action to put them into place. From tomorrow, in Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Gateshead, Sunderland and County Durham, residents should not socialise with other people outside their own households or support bubble; hospitality for food and drink will be restricted to table service only; and late-night restrictions of operating hours will be introduced, so leisure and entertainment venues must close between 10 pm and 5 am.
I know, as the whole House does, that these decisions have a real impact on families, on businesses and on local communities. I can tell everyone affected that we do not take these decisions lightly. We agree with the local councils that we must follow the data and act, and the data says that we must act now so that we can control this deadly virus and keep people safe. I know that the people of the north-east will come together to defeat this virus, as defeat it we must.
We are working to bolster our health and care system too. Winter is always a stretching time for health and for care, but this winter presents particular challenges. People will be spending more time indoors than they did in summer, where we know the virus is more likely to spread, and we know that we will need to deal with coronavirus along with the usual pressures that the season will bring. So today I want to set out our plans to support the NHS and social care this winter.
Turning first to the NHS, I can tell the House that we have allocated a further £2.7 billion to the NHS to support it during the winter months. This funding, in addition to the extra funding for personal protective equipment and testing, will help the NHS with the vital task of operating safely in a world in which covid is still at large and the critical task of working through the backlog of elective work that was inevitably caused by the first peak.
Our emergency departments are on the frontline of the fight for life in the NHS. Today, I am delighted to announce a series of measures to support our urgent and emergency care system this winter and beyond. I want to thank and pay tribute to Katherine Henderson, the president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, with whom I have worked closely to develop these proposals. I want to thank her, and, through her, all those who work in emergency care for their service in the face of adversity. I saw this again this morning at the St Thomas’ Hospital accident and emergency department, and I know that all of us support the work of those who work in our emergency facilities, right across the country. I very much hope that yours, Mr Speaker, will be opening soon in Chorley.
We will make our emergency departments bigger. Many are simply too small—that was true even before the pandemic, but it is even more acute now. So we are investing to expand capacity in urgent and emergency care, so that hospitals have the space to continue treating patients safely in the coming months. In August, we confirmed £300 million for emergency upgrades across 117 trusts, and I can today announce a further £150 million to expand 25 more emergency departments, including some of the most constrained in the country, such as those in Worcester and at the Royal Shrewsbury. This extra funding will put us in the strongest possible position for this winter, and boost the crucial work to accelerate non-covid care.
It is not just about the space, but about the service, so we are working to get patients the right care in the right place, by expanding the role of NHS 111. During the peak of this pandemic, we saw millions of people using NHS 111, on the phone or online, to get the best possible advice on coronavirus, helping them to stay safe and, where possible, to stay out of hospital, where they could have unknowingly spread the virus. It is crucial that, ahead of winter, we use this window of opportunity to seek out what worked and build on it, so we provide a better service for patients and protect the NHS. Of course, no one will ever be turned away from our emergency departments in the most serious of cases; however, we have worked with the royal colleges, the NHS and others to develop a better, quicker and more clinically appropriate service for patients by using NHS 111 first.
This is how it works. We will invest £24 million to increase call-handling capacity and to make sure there are more clinicians on hand to provide expert advice and guidance, and we will build on our trials to make NHS 111 a gateway to the emergency care system, providing a first port of call for patients. In future, rather than having to queue in an emergency ward, we are testing that people should call NHS 111 first to book an appointment with whoever can give them the most appropriate care, whether it is a GP, a specialist consultant, a pharmacist, a nurse or community services. Of course if they need to go to the emergency department, NHS 111 will be able to book them into an appropriate time slot. We want to see this approach lead to shorter waiting times and better availability of appointments for patients. We will consult on how its performance is best measured, and, with successful pilots, we will roll out NHS 111 First to all trusts from December.
Finally, I want briefly to update the House on our work to protect care homes. One of the worst things that we know about this virus is that it reserves its greatest impact for those who are physically weakest, especially the elderly, so we must do everything in our power to protect residents in social care. In May, we introduced the adult social care infection control fund, which has helped adult social care providers reduce the rate of transmission. This was used to fund important measures such as improving infection prevention and paying staff to self-isolate. I can now inform the House that we will extend this fund for six months and provide over £540 million of extra funding for providers. That brings our total funding for infection control measures in social care to over £1 billion. We will also shortly be bringing forward our adult social care winter plan, because we will do whatever is humanly possible to protect our care homes from this virus so that they are a place of sanctuary this winter.
We will soon be facing winter in this fight and, whether on our NHS emergency care wards or in our care homes, we will strain every sinew to give them what they need, so they are well equipped for this pandemic and, indeed, for the years ahead. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his remarks.
The capital investment for 25 A&Es will be welcome. On the piloting of the 111 triage ahead of A&E, given inequalities in accessing healthcare for the poorest and disadvantaged, how will the Secretary of State ensure that it does not worsen health inequalities? If it leads to greater demands on primary care, will GPs be given extra resources as a consequence?
The NHS is facing a likely second spike, winter pressures and a monumental backlog in non-covid care. The Chancellor promised to give the NHS “whatever it needs”. Does that promise still stand, and will the NHS get the funding it now needs to tackle the growing backlog in non-covid care?
On social care, can the Secretary of State guarantee that care homes will not face the same personal protective equipment shortages they faced at the start of the pandemic? Does he also accept that restrictions on family visits cause huge harm to residents? Does he rule out re-imposing nationwide restrictions on family visits?
The Secretary of State said little about testing this afternoon. Back in May he stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that
“everyone aged five and over with symptoms is now eligible for a test. That applies right across the UK, in all four nations, from now. Anyone with a new continuous cough, a high temperature or a loss of, or change in, their sense of taste or smell can book a test”—[Official Report, 18 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 380.]
“We have”, in his words, “now got testing for all”.
Yet, four months later, for the British people, it has become not so much “test and trace” as “trace a test”. Just when many fear we are on the cusp of a second deadly spike, the Prime Minister admits we do not have enough capacity. Rather than fixing the testing, the Secretary of State is restricting it. In the exchanges on Tuesday, 33 Members from across the House raised issues around testing in their constituencies. He responded with the local figures—it was a very good debating trick, and well done to the specialist adviser for producing the briefing—but that will have been no comfort to constituents advised to travel hundreds of miles for a test when ill. It will have been no comfort to parents with a poorly child and themselves sick with worry and unable to get a test. It will have been no comfort to those turned away from walk-in centres and now presenting at A&E asking for a test. It will have been no comfort to the 25,000 teaching staff not in schools teaching our children because they cannot get a test. People want to know when the Secretary of State will fix testing and deliver on his promise to make testing available to everyone.
The Minister in the media this morning said there would be priorities for testing, so can the Secretary of State outline what his rationing plans are? Care England says that weekly testing of all care home staff is still not happening. Will care home staff get testing under his imminent rationing plan? What about people living in areas of restrictions, including the north-east? Will the north-east get all the mobile testing sites it requests? What is happening in university towns, with thousands of students set to come to universities across the country in the next two week? Will there be extra testing in those areas? In July, he pledged 150,000 asymptomatic tests per day by September. Has that commitment now been abandoned?
We should not be in this mess. We warned the Secretary of State that without fixing testing and isolation, infections would rise. Rather than capacity being increased over the summer, pillar 1 and 2 lab capacity remained broadly flat. He is now setting up more commercial Lighthouse labs. Why not invest in the 44 NHS labs instead? There are still problems in these commercial labs, aren’t there? There are huge numbers of voided tests across the commercial labs. Randox had 35,000 voided tests across August. Today’s stats show test turnaround times for testing in these labs getting longer. Serco is still failing to trace 80% of contacts. At what point will the Secretary of State step in and strip poor-performing outsourcing firms of their lucrative public sector contracts?
When testing breaks down, case finding breaks down, isolation breaks down, and we lose control of this virus. The British people made great sacrifices—they missed family celebrations, they could not say their final goodbyes to loved ones at funerals—and honoured their side of the bargain. In return, the Government were supposed to deliver effective testing and tracing. The Government failed. Now we have vast swathes of the country under restrictions. Where do we go next? The Prime Minister yesterday said a second lockdown would be disastrous. Obviously, we all want to avoid a second lockdown, but the British public deserve some clarity. Is the Secretary of State completely ruling out a second short national lockdown in all circumstances? Infections are rising at pace, but it is not clear what the actual strategy of the Government now is. It is all very well talking about camel humps and moonshots, but we need a plan to fully suppress the virus. It is urgent that he fixes testing and tracing and gives people isolation support to avoid further restrictions. Otherwise we face a very bleak winter indeed.
Matt Hancock
To respond to the constructive questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, I welcome his comments on the use of 111 First. The purpose of 111 First is to improve access, including in terms of inequalities in the NHS, by ensuring that people get the right treatment in the right place and easier access if they do need to go to an emergency department, because the emergency department will know that they are coming. It is commonplace now in almost every part of our life to let people know that we are coming. If we are going to do something as important as visit an emergency department, it will help both the patient seeking treatment and the NHS to let them know that they are coming first. That is the principle behind 111 First. It sits alongside 999, which anybody should call in a serious incident.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the need for extra funding for the NHS, both for winter and for testing. I have just announced £2.7 billion of extra funding for the NHS, and he might have done better to welcome it. He talked about tackling the backlog of cases that inevitably built up in the first peak. The good news is that we are making progress on tackling that backlog and reducing it. Of course, there is an awful lot of work to do, and part of this extra funding will go towards that, alongside the funding to expand our emergency departments, the funding for PPE and the funding for testing that I mentioned in my statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about PPE for care homes. We have a huge plan to ensure that care homes can get PPE, and the details will be set out shortly in the social care winter plan. He asked about family visits. The challenge of visits to those living in care homes is incredibly difficult, because nobody wants to spread coronavirus, but we also need to ensure that those who live in care homes get the support that they need and deserve.
The hon. Gentleman asked about testing. Of course there is a challenge in testing. The central point is that, contrary to what he said, capacity is at record levels and has increased week on week. The challenge is that demand has gone up faster—[Hon. Members: “No, it’s not.”] Those on the Opposition Benches can say, “No, it’s not,” but they cannot defy the facts. The most important thing for everybody across the country to hear from their elected representatives, if they are interested in helping the country get through this pandemic, is: if you have symptoms, get a test, and if you do not have symptoms, please do not come forward to get a test unless you are specifically asked to. That is what colleagues on both sides of the House need to be repeating to their constituents.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised prioritisation—I like him, and he raised exactly the right point, which is that we choose to prioritise care home staff and care home residents. Over 100,000 tests a day of the 260,000 capacity are sent to care homes. We could solve other problems by not doing that, but we prioritise those who live in care homes because that is the right thing to do. He asked about areas where there are restrictions. We prioritise putting tests into areas of restrictions, such as Leicester, where there were over 1,000 tests yesterday. This is the core point: when something is provided for free and demand is therefore high, we have to prioritise where we put our national resources. His tone on prioritisation was almost at the point of welcoming it, and welcome it he should. He also asked about universities, and it is important to prioritise testing, where that is clinically appropriate, for universities too.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about today’s contact tracing figures. Again, he played this divisive card that does not suit him at all, talking about the difference between the NHS and the private contractors. What I care about is a good service for the people we serve. The figures announced today are that 83.9% of contacts where communication details were given have been reached and told to self-isolate. That is the contact tracing working—even as the number of cases goes up—to help to control this virus. As we approach winter, I look forward to the two sides of this House coming together in the national interest, not playing these divisive cards that will simply play against the interests of those we serve, who elect us here in order to take our country through difficult times.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Today is World Patient Safety Day, which I had the privilege of launching virtually with Dr Tedros of the World Health Organisation this morning. The changes that the Health Secretary is announcing to A&Es are about patient safety. As Dr Katherine Henderson told the Health Committee, if we go back to crowded A&E waiting rooms, patients will die, so I welcome these changes. May I ask my right hon. Friend specifically about sepsis? Our A&Es have made huge progress in testing people who need to be tested quickly for sepsis when they arrive at A&E. If that is now to be done on the phone—if that is the first point of contact—it is absolutely vital that 111 call handlers are properly trained and their algorithms adjusted to ensure that we ask the right questions on sepsis. Will he undertake to do that?
Matt Hancock
I wholeheartedly support the points that my right hon. Friend has made. I pay tribute to him for his work in establishing World Patient Safety Day and thank him for his ongoing work in the international arena, both representing our country and driving forward this agenda globally. I entirely agree with his comments about 111 First. It is absolutely critical that both the online and phone systems act to ensure that sepsis is recognised, wherever that is feasible, to ensure that people get the best and safest route to care. I will ensure that that point is registered. We have put in the extra funding, which I have just announced, for 111 to ensure more clinical support for people accessing the service through NHS 111 First. Indeed, I pay tribute to him for introducing 111 in the first place. There is an awful lot of work to do here, but it will undoubtedly help patients to get a better service and help the NHS to deal with the multitude of cases that come its way.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
While personal behaviour and local measures are critical, so is a functioning test, trace and isolate system. Last week the Prime Minister claimed that there was capacity for 350,000 covid tests a day, but I am sure the Secretary of State is well aware that a third of that capacity is antibody testing, which becomes positive only after the infection and is therefore of little use in diagnosing cases or managing outbreaks. Why have the Government not published the daily diagnostic testing capacity since last Thursday? The Secretary of State has promised that there will be 500,000 diagnostic tests a day by the end of next month. Can he confirm that that definitely refers to diagnostic antigen testing, and is he confident that it will be delivered on time?
The current problem appears to be a shortage of laboratory capacity, with the Government now cutting test appointments in many parts of the UK. Does the Secretary of State accept that that causes a danger of new outbreaks not being detected at an early enough stage? With the rationing of test slots, there are multiple reports of people being advised to enter an Aberdeen postcode to obtain authorisation for a test, even though the test will be carried out in the south of England. Does he accept that that will undermine Scotland’s contact tracing system and that incorrect data could give the false impression of a local outbreak in Scotland that does not exist? How does he plan to stop that practice?
Finally, the Secretary of State has previously talked about his moonshot testing project, based on millions of people testing themselves for covid every morning. Can he clarify whether he is planning for such tests to be provided on the NHS, or would individuals be paying for them? If they are on the NHS, given the enormous price tag and the fact that the technology does not even exist yet, should he not focus funding and efforts on getting the current diagnostic testing system working in the here and now?
Matt Hancock
Taking those points in reverse order, of course investing in the next generation of technologies is important here and now, because if we do not push forward those technologies that allow us to expand testing, we will always be stuck with the current one. The idea that there is a dichotomy between the two is completely wrong.
On the hon. Lady’s point about an Aberdeen postcode, we already have in place a system to ensure that if someone puts in one postcode but then turns up at the wrong drive-through centre, that will be indicated to the people there, so that problem has been resolved—indeed, it had been resolved before it was first raised in the House.
I hope that, like the Scottish Government, the hon. Lady will reiterate the point that people should come forward for a test when they have symptoms or have been told to do so by a public health professional, and they should not come forward if they do not have symptoms. Working together across the UK is undoubtedly the only way to solve this crisis, to the benefit of all our constituents.
That brings me to the point about testing in Scotland. More tests are being done in Scotland—through drive-through centres, local testing sites and mobile testing centres—than across the rest of the UK per head of population. We over-index the number of tests through those routes that we put into Scotland. Indeed, in the Scottish NHS there is spare capacity that needs to be used. I am working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that that spare capacity is used, given the enormous demand for tests right across this country. I think that tone of working together is what we need to hear.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Earlier this month, Tameside and Glossop clinical commissioning group was reporting the highest rate of covid death of anywhere in the country. I want to put on the record my thanks to Ministers, Public Health England and NHS staff for working so hard to try to tackle this worrying situation, but it is very concerning that my constituents are still sometimes being asked to travel over 150 miles to get a test. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the Government are doing everything they can to ramp up testing and laboratory capacity as a matter of urgency?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. There are of course challenges, which we are working incredibly hard to address, both in Derbyshire and nearby in Greater Manchester. Across Derbyshire as a whole, in the past week almost 4,000 tests have been done, so the testing capacity is there The challenge is that there is also this increase in demand. We have to ensure that the people getting the tests that are available are the people who need them most. That is the principle behind prioritisation, and it is a principle that everyone here should support.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
A constituent wrote to me yesterday:
“My child started at primary school last week. Inevitably, she’s picked up a cold. That cold includes a slight temperature. She’s not allowed back to school until she’s had a negative Covid test result. Nor are my wife and I allowed to go to work. No tests are available.”
That scenario is being repeated in thousands of households across the country, with children who have already been out of school for six months facing further weeks at home because they cannot get a test. The heroic efforts of teachers to enable the full reopening of schools are being undermined by the chaos of the testing system. When will school children, teachers and support staff have reliable and rapid access to testing and results so that covid cases can be swiftly identified and isolated, and disruption to education minimised?
Matt Hancock
Those are the challenges that we are working so hard to address. The message to the hon. Lady’s constituent and others is that there are thousands of tests available in her part of London, and it is incredibly important that those with symptoms come forward and those without symptoms—[Interruption.] I know that her constituent had symptoms. The critical thing is that all of us have the same message: those with symptoms do come forward, but those without do not. That huge spike in demand is the challenge. It is as simple as that.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Testing capacity is a finite resource, and it is right to consider prioritising care homes, hospitals and key workers. Will my right hon. Friend ask his Department also to consider the issue of testing very young children, who frequently experience raised temperatures, coughs and colds? Some parents are taking very young children for multiple tests, but those in that age group are unlikely to be out in the community spreading the virus. People want to do the right thing and nobody wants to overwhelm the system, so will he continue to do all he can to ensure that the testing system is operating efficiently?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which captures the challenges we face. It is absolutely true that children under the age of 16 are very unlikely to get ill with coronavirus; indeed, the proportion of under-16s testing positive is extremely low and is flat, whereas it is rising in many other age groups. She raises a clear point: the prioritisation we have is about getting the tests that we have—record capacity—to the people who need them most. That is why it is an important principle.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Over the next few days, tens of thousands of students will be arriving in Nottingham. Our universities have spent months planning for a safe return, but there is a real danger that their hard work will be undermined, as Nottingham schools’ incredible efforts have been undermined, by the inability to get tests and results promptly. The University of Nottingham has repeatedly requested access to a small stock of pre-distributed pillar 2 swab test kits, which would enable faster and safer testing for symptomatic students and take the pressure off local community testing facilities. Will the Secretary of State work with and listen to universities such as the University of Nottingham to help to improve the efficiency of the national testing programme, and will he authorise the allocation of those kits to the university and others who request them?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely look into that. That is exactly the approach we have taken with schools, and many universities’ labs are an important part of getting test results back. I am very happy to work with all of the 106 universities that are doing so much to ensure that the return of university is covid-secure, and I will look into the precise point the hon. Lady raises.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I have also had a number of Carshalton and Wallington residents get in touch with me about testing, some of whom are being sent down to the south coast to places such as Portsmouth and Southampton. May I ask my right hon. Friend what more the Government are doing not only to ensure that drive-through centres such as those in Chessington, which is nearby, are able to continue to process those tests, but to bring in more testing capacity into boroughs such as Sutton?
Matt Hancock
We are looking to get more testing capacity right across the board, as my hon. Friend well knows. The Chessington drive-through centre, which was one of the first that we put in place, has done an amazing job over the entirety of this pandemic. The good news is that, as I mentioned to the House on Tuesday, the average distance, as the crow flies, that people have to go to get a test has fallen from more than 6 miles to less than 6 miles. The message is that there are thousands of tests available and the average distance is low. The critical thing is that the people who come forward to get a test are the people who are eligible for a test, not people who do not have symptoms.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
There are multiple private companies involved in running the track and test system: Serco, McKinsey & Company, Deloitte and Randox, to name but a few. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there is a financial penalty written into their contracts for when citizens cannot get tests, and what that penalty is? Or is it only our constituents who will pay the price for this mess?
Matt Hancock
It is the task of the companies that the hon. Lady mentions and many more, and of the British Armed Forces, the NHS, the Department, Public Health England and many local councils, including her own, to get as much capacity as possible. That is what their job is, and they are doing that at record levels.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The feedback I am receiving from local schools is that the problems that staff and pupils are experiencing in getting tests could make it very difficult for some schools to remain open. To prevent this, can my right hon. Friend first liaise with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that clear guidance is provided to schools about when to request a test? Secondly, can he do all he can to ensure that local testing programmes, such as that provided by the Norfolk and Waveney clinical commissioning group, continue to operate, as they do provide much-needed additional capacity?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has announced some £2.7 billion extra for the NHS. Can I seek confirmation: under the Barnett consequentials, how much of that will come to Northern Ireland? The news of the progress on a vaccine is a very positive step. Will he again confirm that no vaccine will be available on the NHS that has not been rigorously and completely tested? With that assurance, will he outline whether he considers children and education as a priority for the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
On the NHS funding, the Barnett consequentials will operate in the normal way for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Northern Ireland and right across the country. When it comes to the question of the vaccine, of course, we will allow a vaccine to be put in place across the board only when it is safe. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is one of the most respected and high-quality regulators in the entire world. It is that body that will make the decision on whether it is safe to license. Of course, the question of who should be vaccinated and in what order is again a clinical decision, on which we will take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State on behalf of myself and my colleagues in Aylesbury and Buckingham for the extra A&E funding for Stoke Mandeville. It will make a great difference to patients and our valued NHS personnel in the Buckinghamshire health trust. But, in my constituency, in common with other Members, I am having a problem with the education system. A headteacher has written to me saying that we now have teachers and teachers’ children with covid symptoms, which means that they are off in isolation, and they are being told that there no tests available for 21 days. She writes, “This is very tricky, as we have to pay a lot for supply teachers to cover classes. Would it not be sensible to prioritise testing for teachers if it is a priority to keep schools open, as once too many teachers are off waiting for tests, schools will have to close, and then people won’t be able to return to work?” What can I tell my headteacher, and how can we get those tests into schools more rapidly to mitigate the problems that are coming down the line?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend raises several important points. First, Stoke Mandeville Hospital is a famous and excellent hospital and I am delighted that we are able to expand its emergency facilities in this way. She has done more than anyone to represent the needs of Stoke Mandeville Hospital and all those who serve in that great hospital, so I welcome her comments on that. On testing, absolutely, we have sent tests to all schools to make sure that they have tests available. But of course I also recognise the challenges in getting hold of tests. I do not accept at all that there is a delay of 21 days and nobody should accept that. That is not Government policy. I have just looked up the figures: across Buckinghamshire, just over 1,000 people a day are getting tests, so there are tests available. This is part of the challenge of having the record capacity but demand having gone up. I am working as hard as I can to ensure that all those who need a test—all those who have the symptoms—get a test. I understand that it is a very human instinct to think that if a close contact has symptoms the best thing to do is to get a test, but if people do not have symptoms please do not come forward and use a test that is needed for somebody who has symptoms, so that either they can get a negative result and get back to their normal lives such as teaching at a school, or, if they test positive, we can give them the treatment and support that they need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do want to be able to get everybody in, so I urge colleagues to make the questions fairly brief and, correspondingly, the answers.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
While there are some welcome announcements in this statement, I am utterly astounded that there is only one reference to coronavirus testing when we see cases rising across the country, a system in meltdown, people unable to access tests, and turnaround times down. If the Secretary of State does not believe us, perhaps he should read his own constituency inbox. Will he finally admit that the system is broken and we risk losing control of the virus? Will he issue a public apology?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady, earlier in the week in a statement that was all about testing, raised an issue that turned out to be wrong. I think it is really important and incumbent on all of us as public servants to explain things fairly, straight and properly to our constituents, and that is what she should start to do.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for that statement. I was actually due to head to the north-east myself this weekend to celebrate my parents’ golden wedding anniversary, which obviously I cannot do now, but I take this opportunity to wish them a happy anniversary anyway.
On the subject of testing, I have been contacted by constituents who are struggling to get tested. I know that is something the Secretary of State really does grasp and appreciate, but I wonder what further reassurances he can give them that those who genuinely do need testing will be able to access that as soon as possible.
Matt Hancock
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s family will be disappointed he will not be there, but at least a mention in Hansard is something to make up for it. He rightly raises the challenges in getting tests. I assure him that we are working as hard as we possibly can to fix the problem, that tests are available, even though it is a challenge to get hold of them, and that those who do have symptoms should come forward and get a test.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
Two weeks ago, residents in Darnall in my constituency were pleased that a new walk-in test centre was going to be opened. They are now being told not merely that they cannot walk in to that test centre, but that they cannot walk or drive to any other local centre. Across the city, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has done a brilliant job in using its own laboratories to process tests for staff and patients since the beginning of the covid crisis. Will the Secretary of State now answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) from the Front Bench and indicate when he will fully use the capacity of public sector laboratories to fill in for the failures of the private sector to perform the contracts it has been given?
Matt Hancock
First up, we absolutely support the pillar 2 testing, as it is called, which in Sheffield has delivered more than 10,000 tests in the past week. The hon. Gentleman, who is normally such a reasonable man, should welcome that and thank all those who work on that project. I absolutely support his proposal to further expand the NHS testing in Sheffield, and I look forward to working with the NHS in Sheffield to do just that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is absolutely right that we now put in provisions to prepare for winter, so will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of £6 million for expanding St Peter’s Hospital’s accident and emergency and urgent care centre, which will make a huge difference to patients and to staff working in our hospital?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. This is one of the 25 projects that we are announcing today that are all about preparing for winter. There is nobody who stands up for Runnymede in this House more than my hon. Friend, and he has made a great case for his local hospital. I am very glad to be able to support it today.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
A constituent of mine’s husband, who works in the NHS, came home on Friday with covid symptoms. She has been trying to get him a test ever since, getting up at 5 am in the morning to try to do so. She is being told that tests are available locally and then being told, “Actually, no, there aren’t”, and she cannot get one. She has since developed symptoms herself. Neither of them has been tested. Neither of them is therefore in the tracing system, so there is no follow-up to prevent other people getting the virus as well. This is not just chaotic; it is dangerous.
The Government knew there would be a huge increase in demand for testing when the schools went back and when they were encouraging people to go back to work, yet since mid-July testing capacity has only gone up by 10%, while the number of cases has gone up by 400%. Why did the Secretary of State set his target for the end of October and not the beginning of September, so we could get enough tests in place?
Matt Hancock
We are increasing that capacity and, as I said, it is at record levels. When it comes to the right hon. Lady’s constituents, first, those who work in the NHS are eligible to get tests through the NHS pillar 1 system, but for all those who have symptoms of coronavirus or think they may have symptoms of coronavirus, it is very important that they self-isolate—
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Lady says she is doing that. I am very glad that she is, and I thank her for doing that. I am very happy to work with the right hon. Lady to ensure that her constituent who works in the NHS can get a test through the NHS, because that is the role of the NHS for provision for those who work within it.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I welcome the confirmation today that Leighton Hospital will receive £9 million extra to help it prepare for winter. That funding will make a huge difference. I think everyone in this House and in the whole country hopes that we manage to find a vaccine, so I would be grateful for an update on vaccine development. Can my right hon. Friend also confirm my understanding that Test and Trace has found that the virus is spreading in our own homes, when we mix with friends and family, and that, as much as it is difficult for us, that is why the lockdown is focusing on those types of interactions?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, as an emergency doctor himself, he knows more than almost anyone in this House about the needs of emergency care, not least because he spent lockdown working on the frontline of our NHS. I know that everybody is grateful to him for that. I know that the £9 million expansion to Leighton Hospital, which he and I visited in November or December, is much needed, and I hope that it brings good benefits, but it is also critical that people listen to my hon. Friend’s wise words.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
On 21 July, during this summer’s nadir of new covid cases, I pressed the Government’s chief medical officer on the need to expand testing capacity. In that meeting of the Health and Social Care Committee, he stated that he would not consider that until there was evidence of a new surge in cases. Now we are in the grip of a second wave, with mounting chaos in testing capacity. Who should resign? The Secretary of State? The chief medical officer? Or do Ministers in this Government resign only when they refuse to break international law?
Matt Hancock
There is record testing capacity, which we work across the whole UK to deliver.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend to set out the specific criteria that must be met for the rule of six to be lifted?
Matt Hancock
The judgment on how we lift the rule of six will be based on a whole series of measures: not least, of course, the case rate across the country, but also the impact of those cases in terms of hospitalisations. Sadly, we are seeing hospitalisations starting to rise, and therefore we have brought in measures to try to slow the spread of the virus. We also look at test positivity and the surveys of how many cases there are around the country, not just at the total number, because of course if you put more testing in, you get more positives. We look at all those indicators and, of course, take the clinical advice, and then make a judgment.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The last time I raised test and trace failures, the Secretary of State accused me of not being serious. Well, I am deadly serious. The Mildmay testing centre opposite my office in Ilford South has stopped accepting walk-in tests, despite the constituency being on the cusp of a local lockdown, with Redbridge now having the highest infection rate in London. The Secretary of States has repeatedly claimed to be following the science and data while ignoring the advice of leading scientists who have called for an expansion of our public health infrastructure. We now face further lockdowns across the country as a direct consequence of the lack of capacity in his test and trace system. It is hardly world beating. With the chief medical officer saying that there are 38,000 infections per day, can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that we will not need a second lockdown to mitigate his failing test and trace system?
Matt Hancock
I work very closely with the London leadership, cross-party, to tackle the problems and to ensure that there is testing available according to the clinical priority. In the hon. Gentleman’s area in the last week, there have been over 3,000 tests. I am sure that he welcomes those, but we absolutely work so that there are more, not least in the public health and NHS systems, as well as through the pillar 2 Lighthouse lab approach.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I have four asks for the Secretary of State. No. 1 is to fix the national portal. A constituent of mine failed to get a test in Bolton, but then she tried using a Wigan postcode and succeeded in getting a test for Bolton. No. 2 is to remove the backlog on testing results. People are having to wait too long before getting results. The third is to ramp up contact tracing. The senior leadership at my local authority inform me that they do not have the resource to deliver what is needed. Finally, what specific actions is his Department taking right now to help bring down the numbers in Bolton?
Matt Hancock
The situation in Bolton is very serious, and all four of the requests from my hon. Friend are rightly made. He is pressing the case, as he should, and perhaps I should meet him to see what progress we can make on all these cases.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Despite the likes of me warning last month about test lab capacity problems, the Government could not get a grip of their supposedly world-beating system and have now instructed our testing centre in Slough to become appointment-only. The only slight snag is that, instead of being able to use the Slough site, local people are being asked to travel for hundreds of miles, including getting a ferry to the Isle of Wight. This debacle is dangerous because Slough has already had too many fatalities and has only recently come off the Government’s covid watchlist. Given that we all know that test, track and trace is the best weapon to tackle coronavirus, how does the Secretary of State for Health expect local communities to continue their hard work in overcoming this virus if his Government are failing to provide vital resources?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary, the fact is that we are working hard with the local authority in Slough, where just in the last week over 1,900 tests have been done. I think it would be better to work together—don’t you?
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
On a visit to Trinity Academy in the town of Thorne in my constituency, the principal told me that increasing the number of testing kits given to each school from 10 to 30 will better ensure that children remain in the classroom, where they belong. Can my right hon. Friend therefore confirm to the House whether his Department is planning on increasing the number of testing kits distributed to educational settings?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are looking at exactly that, and I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about it.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Health Secretary has announced restrictions in the north-east. He will know that, in my community, we have been under those restrictions for quite some time now. This has impacted on beauty businesses, soft play centres, wedding companies and, particularly, coach companies. With my constituents doing the right thing and trying to beat this virus, but with furlough ending and winter looking like we might have continued lockdowns, does he agree with me that we now need a financial package to support the businesses that are suffering so that they do wither on the vine, and so that my constituents can do the right thing in having to choose between leaving work in order to keep people safe and putting food on the table?
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, because in Kirklees it has been difficult in the last few weeks. Unfortunately, we are seeing continued cases in Kirklees. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced further support for businesses. She rightly argues for that in Batley and Spen, and I will see what I can do to further that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to re-emphasise that we need brief questions, because we have two very well subscribed debates this afternoon on coronavirus support and it is important that we get to those fairly promptly.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
Over the past few days, I and Kent colleagues have received a significant increase in the number of inquiries from constituents regarding testing arrangements in the county, which are leaving many frustrated by the online booking system and, ultimately, unable to arrange a test nearby. What steps is the Department taking to scale up testing and lab capacity in Kent, and could consideration be given to a more accessible and localised system to ensure that those in genuine need of a test are able to arrange one as close to their home as possible?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend makes the point well. We are putting more localised testing in and making sure that it is as accessible as possible. Of course, the challenge is to ensure that those tests get to the right people, prioritised appropriately, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to deliver that across Kent.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
At least six care homes in my borough of Enfield have seen the return of covid-19 cases. At the same time, they are experiencing delays in receiving pillar 1 and pillar 2 test kits, and results are taking more than a week to arrive, potentially leading to a rise in the spread of the virus. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that testing is not taking as long? What does he intend to do to fix this mess?
Matt Hancock
Making sure that test kits get returned rapidly is incredibly important, including in social care. I am glad to say that the backlog has come down over the past week. At its core, our response to the problems in social care, because so many people who live in care homes are older and therefore vulnerable, is to protect the amount of test kits. The weekly testing of staff and the monthly testing of residents has been delivered and is being protected, even despite all the other pressures on testing capacity.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he is doing in clearly challenging circumstances. My constituency, which is part of Solihull Borough, is under enhanced restrictions at the moment, restricting household-to-household mixing. That is absolutely the right thing to do. However, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to allowing informal childcare arrangements? Many parents who cannot afford to pay for childcare would welcome the opportunity to go to work within the guidelines and also have childcare in place.
Matt Hancock
That is an important question. It is a very difficult balance, because often informal childcare is grandparents looking after children and older people are, of course, the most vulnerable to the disease. That is the balance that we need to strike. I always keep an open mind and I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about getting the balance exactly right in his area.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Government’s plans for mass testing have been criticised for placing their faith in technologies that are yet to be fully validated scientifically. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged that we are some way off the widespread use of pregnancy-style covid-19 tests. Given the well documented issues with capacity in the UK testing system at the moment, does the Health Secretary accept that we need to focus on ensuring that the existing system works before trying to shoot for the moon?
Matt Hancock
We need to do both. I would just ask the hon. Lady to look at the work the SNP Scottish Government are doing. They are themselves employing and deploying some of the new technologies.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
In Bolton, the national lockdown has been followed by the local lockdown and economic lockdown. Positive covid cases are rocketing up, and that is having a devastating impact on people’s physical and mental health, as well as people’s livelihoods and businesses. Many people are heading out of the borough to get beauty treatments, and to go to pubs and restaurants. At the same time, the testing system is failing to deliver, so people are increasingly going to accident and emergency departments in Bolton and Wigan in the hope of getting a covid test. What actions is my right hon. Friend taking to deal with that?
Matt Hancock
We have put huge amounts of testing into Bolton, with almost 7,000 tests over the past week. People should not go to A&E to access tests. I saw that that was being reported yesterday. My team have been working with the hospital, which is doing a very good job in difficult circumstances. It is seeing the number of hospital admissions with coronavirus starting to rise. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. The situation in Bolton is very difficult, with over 200 cases per 100,000 of population. That is the highest in the country by a long, long way and we have a lot of work to do to get the situation under control in Bolton. All the people of Bolton should listen to the public health advice, which is unanimous among Members of Parliament, the council, which is doing an excellent job, and the national clinical advisers. The advice is this: “Do not socialise with those outside your household.” That way, we will be able to get this most localised of epidemics under control.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is no good blaming the public. People want to know that they can get a test when they need to. Some 25% of new cases are in north-west England, but only 15% of testing capacity. My constituents who are showing symptoms cannot get a test. Children and staff in our schools need to be able to get a test, so schools can stay open safely. The care homes in my borough are worried that, as demand goes up, they will not be able to get a test. When will the extra capacity be available in my constituency? The British people know what is going to happen and who is responsible. Fix it!
Matt Hancock
We have been putting in the extra testing capacity in Sefton. More than 5,000 tests have been conducted in Sefton in the last week. People should hear loud and clear that if they are in Sefton, as anywhere else, and they have the symptoms, they should come forward. The hon. Gentleman’s question, by rightly raising the importance of people with symptoms and people in care homes being able to get a test, underlines how important it is to prioritise and that people who do not have symptoms should not come forward. I hope that he would repeat that message.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Having visited Chorley and South Ribble Hospital last Friday, I was delighted to see some of the Government’s £300 million grant in action, with teams on the ground building significant works to help to make the A&E unit more covid-secure and increase its capacity. Will my right hon. Friend join me in looking forward to its full reopening as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned in my statement, I want to see the A&E in Chorley reopen as soon as is safely possible. My hon. Friend is right that we have put in a huge amount of support, and we all want to see it reopening. I look forward to the day—I hope soon—when we can announce that that has happened.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
As my constituency sees the introduction of the new local restrictions in the north-east, will the Government give extra thought to easing the restrictions on informal childcare? It is an important part of the north-east economy and an absolute necessity for those on the lowest incomes, particularly women. I understand it is something that the local authorities have also requested. Will the Secretary of State think about that again for the north-east?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will happily work with the hon. Lady on that question. It is a challenge, because of the problem of intergenerational transmission of the virus—I am sure she understands that side of it—so it is an important balance that we need to strike.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am absolutely delighted with the £9.7 million upgrade of Southend A&E, which is entirely appropriate as we move towards city status. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Southend is to avoid a lockdown, we cannot have a repetition of the scenes at Short Street testing station yesterday where, apparently, someone in management said that people could turn up without an appointment?
Matt Hancock
I will happily look into the testing in Southend, but it is nice to have some good news for the people there today.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Luton was an area of concern earlier in the summer, but it came out of it because people were able to get tested whether they had symptoms or not. Now, however, with the prioritisation of only those with symptoms because of the abject failure of the Government to get the testing process right, residents in my constituency are worried that we will see the simple blunt tool of a national lockdown. Can the Secretary of State give some clarification?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that Luton is an example of local action that worked to bring the case rate right down. The outbreak was specific to certain parts of Luton. The council worked with the national bodies brilliantly.
Over the last week in Luton, about 3,000 tests have been done, so those tests are available. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to make sure that people who have symptoms are able to get the test.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the extra money for the Luton and Dunstable Hospital that he announced today. Does he agree that it would help people with symptoms who need a test if those told to self-isolate without symptoms did not think that a test was a “get out of jail free” card? How can we help people to self-isolate properly, given that only one in five has been doing so?
Matt Hancock
This is the central point: if people do not have symptoms, but they have been close to somebody who has tested positive or has symptoms of coronavirus, unfortunately they have to self-isolate because of the biology of the virus, which can incubate for up to 14 days. Even a negative test does not release them from that obligation, because they may well get a false negative. That is at the core of how we control this virus. The more colleagues around the House explain that principle, the more we will relieve pressure on the testing system and break the chains of transmission of the virus. It is an incredibly important point for us to communicate to all those we serve.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Increasingly, we have a Health Secretary who is out of control of a virus that is out of control. Next weekend, 40,000 students will come to York. We were promised a testing centre next month. November is now the earliest that we will have a walk-in centre where people can have a test. What discussions has he had with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence about strategic planning, because it seems that his Department is incapable of planning for this virus?
Matt Hancock
We of course have to ensure that the provision of testing centres is where the virus is most virulent. Actually, we do have military planners involved in that process, and it is very important to get it right.
I should also say that we have just had two speakers from Luton, and I forgot to mention the money to improve Luton Hospital, which is one of the best in the country. I am delighted that it has made the case successfully for the expansion of its A&E, which will serve all the people of Luton.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Some 1.4% of those 275,000 people who travelled and queued were positive. Will not even a modest number of false positives mislead us? Is the Office for National Statistics survey any less prone to false positives?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the mathematics and the science of testing. I am sure he would enjoy reading the annexes to the ONS report that comes out each Friday, which address directly the question how the ONS adjusts for potential false positives, due to the high but not perfect specificity of the polymerase chain reaction test. I am very happy for one of my academics to take him through the rigorous Bayesian mathematics, which I am sure will help to elucidate the debate on this matter still further.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Because of the testing shambles, I understand that covid tests now have to be rationed to high-risk areas, but that comes at a time of increasing case numbers in Brighton and Hove, where a yellow alert has just been issued amid record cases last week. How will new outbreaks in currently deprioritised areas be identified and contained if we are not testing properly in the community? How will contact tracing function? I am really worried about the impact of the rationing of tests on our chances of knowing about and containing new outbreaks in other regions.
While I have the floor, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to condemn the comments of the Leader of the House about an hour ago, when he told the public to stop their “endless carping” about the lack of access to tests. It is not endless carping; it is genuine concern about people’s health.
Matt Hancock
Given the hon. Lady’s understandable concerns for her constituents, she should welcome the record testing capacity that we have and the more than 3,000 tests that have been done in Brighton in the last week.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Given the speculation about new local restrictions in West Yorkshire, will the Secretary of State reassure me that he will continue to be driven by the data? Will he also deploy extra testing facilities and capacity, because entire families in my constituency are unable to go to work or school, as they sit at home repeatedly refreshing the testing portal to try to book a covid test for family members with symptoms?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend, who rightly raised this issue with me on Tuesday, knows that I will always be driven by the data in the local action that we take. Where we do take local action, I do so with a heavy heart. I was very pleased that we were able to take his constituency out of the local action in West Yorkshire. However, we have seen case rates go up, and we will be guided by that data. I look forward to talking to him and working with him on that basis.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Despite the disappointing news that the Health Secretary has delivered, the people of the north-east are committed to doing everything they can to get this virus under control—but the Government need to meet them halfway. In Scotland and Wales, children under 11 are exempt from the restrictions. That enables families who do not have an army of nannies and formal childcare to get to work. I appreciate the concerns that he has outlined today, but none of them explains why the people of Scotland and Wales are trusted to make these decisions, yet people in England are disproportionately put in the difficult position of not being able to rely on family and friends.
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who, in what she has been saying this morning and overnight about the restrictions that we have unfortunately had to put in place in her local area, has been speaking for her constituents, and with very clear public health messages that it is so important that people heed. I will absolutely look at the point that she raised and make sure, working with her local councils, that we get the details right of exactly the measures that are put in place in her area and, indeed, across the country.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
As a north-east Tory MP, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for engaging so effectively with our local authorities in the north-east as we try to tackle this really worrying rise in cases. However, I am concerned that residents across my constituency are facing these difficult, restrictive measures yet not seeing many rises in covid cases in our local communities. How will he review the situation in the north-east? Will he work with me to assess the figures at the most local level to ensure that residents from Spennymoor to Shildon to Barnard Castle can all get back to normal life as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. We take action at as local a level as possible, but unfortunately we do have to take action in this case. I was in the north-east on Monday. I would echo her comments that people will do what is necessary to control this virus and to look out for their communities. I pay tribute to the work that she has done in representing people from Bishop Auckland and her whole constituency in what are difficult times.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents cannot get tests, including people who work for the NHS. Others have been sent as far afield as Aberdeen for tests. At the same time, there has been spare testing capacity in the region. Last week, NHS Test and Trace moved all its mobile testing units out of County Durham. The measures that the Secretary of State has outlined today will be enacted by the people of the north-east—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—but unless we have an effective local test and trace system, this will not work. Is it not time to just admit that the national system has failed and that the effort now has to go into directors of public health being given the finance locally to put in place effective test and trace systems that local people can have confidence in?
Matt Hancock
The test and trace system works in a combination of the national and the local. If we took away the national, we would not have the record testing capacity, but if we took away the local, we would not have the local knowledge and the boots on the ground to solve problems and to find people who need to self-isolate. It is the combination of the two that works. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to work with his local council and with the national teams to do everything we can to get the virus under control in his area.
Munira Wilson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the Secretary of State’s response to me earlier in the statement, he said that I was wrong to raise the issue earlier this week of my constituents using Scottish postcodes to access tests and that I was not being fair or straight with my constituents. I would like to offer the Secretary of State the evidence that I have. I have emails from Sunday, from Monday and, indeed, from this morning of constituents using Aberdeen and Dundee postcodes to access tests at the Twickenham site. Will the Secretary of State withdraw his comment, or is he suggesting that my constituents are lying to me?
Matt Hancock
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to look at any evidence that is presented, but I did look into this issue when it was raised on Tuesday. If someone does as the hon. Lady suggests and then goes to a testing site that is not the one they booked into, an alarm comes up on the screen to say that the person is booked into the wrong testing centre, so there is a process in place to tackle the problem that she has mentioned. I am very happy to look at any evidence to solve any problems in the system, but I have looked into this one, and I am assured that that is the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I thank the Secretary of State for responding to it. I suggest that if the hon. Lady still wishes to send the emails to the Secretary of State, perhaps she should do so. It feels as though we can perhaps get to the bottom of this if we do it that way. There will now be a three-minute suspension.
Covid-19 Pandemic: Government Response
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Mr William Wragg will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Mr William Wragg to respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once, and interventions should be questions and they should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. I should say that we have two heavily subscribed debates afterwards, so I urge Members to ask brief questions.
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr William Wragg.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On behalf of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to present our report on a public inquiry into the response to the covid-19 pandemic. I begin by expressing my gratitude to those who contributed to the report. In particular, I am indebted to our witnesses, who gave their time to the Committee in contributing evidence, including Emma Norris, Dr Alastair Stark, Jason Beer QC, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Sir Robert Francis, QC, Dame Una O’Brien and Baroness Prashar of Runnymede, as well as those who submitted written evidence to the inquiry. I also thank my fellow Committee members and indeed extend my thanks to the excellent Committee staff who worked at pace to help produce the report.
As we are all painfully aware, covid-19 has had and continues to have a profound impact on our lives, from those who work in our health and social care sectors to those who have sadly been bereaved. It is therefore important that a thorough inquiry is conducted.
Public inquiries have been a routine part of the UK’s political landscape, and they are now customary following major public incidents and crises. For that reason, it is welcome that at yesterday’s Liaison Committee meeting, the Prime Minister again committed to establishing a public inquiry into the Government’s response to the pandemic. However, at present there is little guidance about exactly how or when such an inquiry will be established.
From the time of their announcement, inquiries can take several weeks or even months before they begin gathering evidence. Chairs and panels need to be appointed, inquiry staff recruited, budgets established, IT procured and terms of reference decided, all of which is currently done without any official guidance. Even if the inquiry is launched immediately, it is unlikely to begin its evidence gathering much before the end of the year. For that reason, we recommend that the Government take immediate steps towards launching the inquiry. The Committee is confident that combating the spread of covid-19 and launching an inquiry into the Government’s responses thus far are not mutually exclusive ends.
The Committee also believes that there is a need for clarity about the primary purpose of any inquiry. To date, inquiries have served to establish facts, apportion blame, pass judgments, perhaps all under the umbrella of holding decision makers to account. Determining the purpose is important, not only because it dictates much of the substance of the inquiry but because it should also decide the way in which the inquiry is organised. As things stand, there is no fixed configuration and whether there is a quasi-legal construction—often chaired by a judge making extensive use of statutory powers—or chairs with no legal authority but considerable policy expertise remains uncertain.
Although mistakes will inevitably have been made in handling the pandemic response, the report recommends that the inquiry should be forward-looking, with the primary purpose of appreciating where and why mistakes were made and ensuring that similar events can be handled better in future. To do that, an understanding of the decisions taken and the reasons for them will be needed, but we are clear that the inquiry should not solely be a hunt for somebody to blame. While that may mean that some important issues are excluded from the inquiry, Parliament is able to set out its plans to cover which information is omitted. That will allow the public inquiry to focus on the issues with which it has been tasked and those who are impacted by the wider issues to understand how and when they can contribute to the lessons learned.
The report stresses the importance of the inquiry’s chair. At present, the remit and holder of the chair is decided by a Minister on an ad hoc basis without reference to established procedure, yet it is the Committee’s belief that the significance of the chair who conducts the inquiry is such that the usual ad hoc process is not appropriate and that greater transparency is needed. The appointing Minister should be able to demonstrate that proper consultation and deliberation has been conducted before the appointment is made. We also suggest that the appointment should be subject to a pre-commencement hearing with the relevant Select Committee, given the high level of parliamentary interest in the inquiry.
Yet of course the chair cannot succeed alone, and every chair should be supported by an equally capable panel. That is particularly important in an inquiry into the Government’s response to a multifaceted pandemic, for which the panel can supplement the chair’s skills and expertise with their own. However, there is a balance to be struck between increasing the range of expertise represented on the panel and the need to have a panel small enough to function effectively. Again, greater transparency is needed on how the panel is appointed.
Concern has also been raised about the authority to bring an inquiry. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Government of the United Kingdom can establish a joint inquiry, but we are concerned that a single inquiry would not see devolved matters receiving sufficient attention. That matter is exacerbated by the fact that we cannot make recommendations to the devolved Administrations, and rightly so. To that end, we encourage the devolved Administrations to establish their own inquiries into how they have handled the covid-19 response.
This report further explores the accountability of the Government in responding to an inquiry’s recommendations. At present, the Government are under no obligation to explain why they do or do not accept suggested courses of action. Although they sometimes accept recommendations, that is by no means always the case. Therefore, the Committee expects the Government, in responding to the inquiry, to adopt a “comply or explain” approach, which should demonstrate beyond doubt why they do or do not accept particular recommendations and what action will be taken instead.
On a final, related note, the lack of structure and official guidance leaves no formal process to follow up and oversee the implementation of an inquiry’s recommendations. Select Committees have been known to follow up inquiries, but often they do not. Of course the very purpose of Select Committees is to scrutinise actions taken by the Government, and the action taken with regard to inquiry recommendations should be no different. An additional level of scrutiny can be achieved via the Liaison Committee, which we suggest should consider adding the scrutiny of the Government’s response to public inquiries to the list of core tasks for departmental Select Committees. On that note of parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome questions from colleagues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I would like to start the next debate at approximately 1.35 pm, so I stress that these are questions to Mr William Wragg, not mini-speeches, so that he has the chance to respond.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for updating the House on these issues. I welcome much of the report, but I cannot agree that a judge-led inquiry would not be the best way to achieve the desired transparency. Although I agree it is vital that each of the devolved nations has its own inquiry, should we not also be encouraging a broad UK approach in those areas that are reserved, so that we get a national picture, not a disjointed one?
Mr Wragg
We have not quite made the recommendation that it should not be a judge-led inquiry; it could well be, but perhaps with a panel of different experts to contribute something different. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on the need for a co-ordinating role, which has to be based on co-operation with the devolved Administrations.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that there is a separate Scottish inquiry into the areas of responsibility of the Scottish Government? As my colleagues have already highlighted in the Scottish Parliament, there are significant areas of concern, not least in relation to the number of deaths in Scotland in care homes, which followed specific decisions of the Scottish Government. Does he also agree that it should be possible to have such an inquiry into those responsibilities and at the same time have an inquiry into the responsibilities of the UK Government, who of course have significant reserved responsibilities in Scotland?
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
As my hon. Friend identified in his statement, we discovered during the evidence sessions that there is no standing secretariat for public inquiries. For example, Sir Robert Francis told us that
“we were all starting with a blank piece of paper when it came to setting up resources, so there was no idea where we would have offices or where we were going to get equipment from.”
He also said it took him four months to appoint solicitors. So does my hon. Friend agree that if we set up an inquiry sooner rather than later, it will enable the inquiry to do that important background preparatory work so that it is ready to focus on the main task at hand as soon as possible?
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
One of the main issues facing the effectiveness of any inquiry will be the difference in approach across the four nations and whether evidence presented has been evidence-based or politically driven. Does the hon. Member therefore agree that the devolved Governments should be afforded access to evidence-based decision making by the UK Government that has had a direct impact on the devolved Governments’ ability to respond to the pandemic?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We have learned a lot about covid in the past nine months, and it is worth reflecting that this disease did not exist a year ago. One of the things that plagues inquiries—I have certainly seen this a lot in medicine, in terms of investigations—is the trap of hindsight bias. Of course, when we look back, there are things that we would do differently because we have learned so much in the past nine months. How can we ensure that the inquiry avoids using what we sometimes call the retrospectoscope?
Mr Wragg
I thank my hon. Friend. Being a qualified medic, he will share my disdain for any outbreak of “hindsightitis” in all this. I would emphasise that the summary of our report states that the primary purpose of the inquiry should be
“to learn lessons and to make recommendations about how similar events can be better handled in future.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for his presentation. I wholeheartedly agree with him and others that there should be an inquiry, but does he agree that the inquiry should not be to point fingers, but rather to enable lessons to be learned if, God forbid, we come to circumstances like this again? Furthermore, does he agree that any inquiries and investigations carried out by the devolved Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be sought by this inquiry team and must be incorporated in any report?
Mr Wragg
Yes, I agree with the thrust of the hon. Member’s question. He may already be aware of—and, following this statement, may wish to follow up—the evidence kindly presented to us to by Gordon Lyons, Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive Office, who made an important contribution to our proceedings.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and all those who contributed to the report. Does he agree that it would be appropriate for any inquiry to consider the supply of critical equipment, including personal protective equipment and ventilators, and how the Government can ensure that we have adequate manufacturing capacity in the UK, so that we are not reliant on outside suppliers to have enough vital equipment?
Mr Wragg
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Again, without pre-empting what such an inquiry may wish to investigate and find, it is useful to have the Paymaster General on the Treasury Bench, because I know that her department in the Cabinet Office is particularly keen on the areas that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
As a member of the Select Committee, I would like to thank all the Committee staff for their ongoing help, support, knowledge and professionalism during these complex times. Does the Chair agree that, if we are to fully understand how we can do things better, the proposed devolved inquiries must have access to the Cabinet members, experts and civil servants who were part of the UK Government’s response to the covid crisis?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Chair and all the other members of the PACAC for this timely report, its fifth report; they have been very assiduous.
Her Majesty’s Opposition have responded to this pandemic in a spirit of co-operation that has always put the national interest first, and we are also willing to work together to ensure the right lessons are learned. The fundamental task of any Government is to protect their citizens’ health and wellbeing, so it is crucial to get this inquiry right. A full, independent public inquiry into the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic is essential to ensure that we are better equipped to confront future health emergencies. We also need to ask questions about why Exercise Cygnus was not followed during the pandemic.
An emphasis should be placed on the early response to the pandemic, including the factors that might have contributed to a delay in ordering a full lockdown and whether the initial herd immunity strategy was pursued. Members will have been shocked by the disproportionate number of BAME deaths, which were not just confined to people in poverty but included people of all classes, including consultants. Understanding these disparate outcomes should form a central part of the inquiry.
The Prime Minister has said that the inquiry should not take place while the pandemic continues. I suggest there be a two-stage inquiry: an initial review followed by a wide-ranging public inquiry. We know that the Government Legal Service can set up inquiries quite quickly and that there are different inquiries taking place. I support the 16 recommendations in the report. It is extremely important that we hold the Government to account, so I agree with the Committee that the Liaison Committee should consider adding the scrutiny of the Government’s responses to public inquiries to the list of core tasks of the Departmental Select Committees. It would be a welcome development. I also think that the four nations should hold their own lessons-learned inquiries, because they all dealt with the pandemic differently.
To conclude, I again thank the Committee for its assiduous work. Her Majesty’s Opposition welcome the report.
Mr Wragg
I thank the right hon. Lady for her constructive reply and careful consideration of the report and for welcoming all our recommendations. I am sure that the Government—with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on the Front Bench—will in due course welcome all those recommendations as well.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)
Backbench Business
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will know that the two Backbench Business debates are very well subscribed, so there is likely to be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches for both. As we are running behind quite a lot, that limit might have to go down further. With two debates, there will be two Front-Bench winding-up speeches, so the amount of time for Back-Bench contributions will be fairly short.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move
That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.
I first applied for this debate in May, but the matters at hand are as relevant now as they were at that time, and perhaps even more so as we continue to struggle with the challenges of covid-19 and its serious and far-reaching consequences. I wish to say at the outset that I will not press for a vote on the motion, because it would simply eat into the talking time in the next important debate.
The job retention scheme was established by the UK Government. At the time, it was a very welcome response to the disruption caused by the virus, helping to keep workers and families afloat during difficult times. It would be wrong, indeed churlish, to say anything else. I know that this point will be explored in the next debate, but every single MP in the House will have had emails from constituents who have been deprived of any support through no fault of their own—the newly employed, the newly self-employed, freelancers and so on. The injustice of being excluded from support has profound consequences for those affected. For six months, some have had no wages coming in, and for far too many there is no end in sight to their troubles.
For these people, this issue should have been quickly addressed by the Chancellor, when the up to 3 million excluded came to light. It should have been addressed and still can be addressed, but it has not been, so their debts are building, their futures are uncertain and they are simply being ignored. Hearing, as we have many times in this Chamber, of the Chancellor’s bounty for other workers does not pay their bills; it only increases their sense of being overlooked and ignored. The words “We are all in this together” ring hollow and mocking in their ears, and we shall hear more about that in the next debate. Now we face the situation of the job retention scheme being wound down at the end of October, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people losing their jobs.
In previous debates, Government Members met the common-sense arguments in favour of extending furlough with cries of “This scheme can’t last forever”, and I presume that that is because they simply cannot answer why it needs to be wound down in October. Extending the furlough scheme by a mere eight months could save 61,000 jobs in Scotland alone. In much of Europe support schemes are being extended, not curtailed, with Germany investing 4% of its annual income in recovery compared with the UK’s feeble 1.3%.
We must save jobs that are sustainable in the longer term until our economy is more robust. Many self-employed people—people overlooked entirely by the job retention scheme—must also be included, otherwise we will face a wave of job losses and millions will face enormous ongoing financial hardship, with some sectors of our economy taking years to recover and some jobs lost forever.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend talks about some sectors struggling and transport, in particular aviation, would be one of those sectors. Does she agree that if the Government do not extend a version of the furlough scheme for all sectors they should at least be looking at doing so for specific sectors that are really struggling?
Patricia Gibson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We need sectoral support, and some areas are desperately looking for help, but we also need to extend this scheme in general.
To wind down the scheme and withdraw all support at the end of October, just as payment holidays are ending, will do huge damage to workers and their families, as many will face losing their homes and any hope of financial recovery. Tens of thousands of viable jobs could be saved with an extension of support. We know, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, that the aviation and aerospace industries and the tourism and hospitality sectors are struggling badly, as are our night-time industries. They have been hit very hard, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that 3 million jobs could be lost, most of which would remain viable in the longer term if support were to continue.
The Fraser of Allander Institute reports that 55% of Scottish businesses using the job retention scheme expect to reduce employee numbers when it ends.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Like the hon. Lady, I have had letters and emails from people in similar situations, and I am sure everyone here has a great deal of sympathy. She mentioned the importance of maintaining jobs that are going to be viable after this is all over, but one of the things most people are saying to me is, “We don’t know what the new normal is going to be like,” so how is she going to choose between jobs that are going to be viable and those which will just be fundamentally changed because their industries are changed as a result of consumers behaving differently once the pandemic is over?
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the whole point is that we do not know. We need to get our economy on an even keel; we need to make sure it is healthier so that then the damage can be assessed—but what a crime it is to throw away viable jobs because we think that some jobs will not be viable. There are potentially millions of jobs that are saveable here, and I think investing in our jobs is a price worth paying in order to save the vast majority, because that is what the experts are telling us.
Patricia Gibson
I will make some progress.
Many businesses are awaiting further lockdown easing before some or all of their staff return to pre-covid working hours. Numerous other viable businesses are simply not in a position to keep staff in their jobs without this crucial support. Indeed, in our own island communities, such as the Isle of Arran in my constituency and the Isle of Cumbrae, there has been even greater disruption with the necessity of capacity restrictions on ferries. With the main tourism season drawing to a close, further support for viable jobs is essential.
Government Members continue to throw their hands in the air and ask, “For how long should support continue?”, to which we on the SNP Benches reply, “For as long as necessary to save tens of thousands of viable jobs, perhaps millions in the longer term.” We say: we want the Chancellor to keep his word when he said he would do “whatever it takes” to save jobs. Let us put to bed this economic illiteracy about what that would cost. The direct cost to the Government of extending furlough would be offset by income tax and national insurance contributions paid on the wages of those remaining on furlough and by savings on unemployment benefits that would not need to be paid. The net cost of extending the furlough scheme across the UK would be around £10 billion, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. We also need to factor in how that would help economic growth and leave public debt slightly lower as a share of GDP than if the scheme were closed down next month, and that is before we factor in the likely significant social cost of not extending the scheme. Without an extension, unemployment is likely to be as high as 10%.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I accept many of the points that the hon. Lady is making, but does she also accept that some of the jobs she is talking about will not be viable when the furlough scheme ends and that extending it would delay the opportunities to retrain or accept jobs in other sectors?
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but again we hear the argument that, because some of these jobs cannot be saved, no jobs should be saved. We say: let us invest in our people and assess the economic damage afterwards. At the moment, when the picture is not clear and the facts are still emerging, and when the extent of the damage is still unknown and the economy is still in a critical condition, we cannot afford to wind the scheme down in October.
Jim Shannon
With businesses slowly bringing staff off furlough, does the hon. Lady agree that extending the scheme will allow that slow rollback to continue, rather than having owners make the decision to let go of staff who could be brought back in a month’s time? We are talking about 700,000 people. Another month, or another few, could make all the difference.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He is absolutely correct. For the sake of a little extra support until our economy is in better condition, while we are still in the midst of the pandemic—it has not gone away—we need to save as many jobs as possible and support businesses in their quest to hold on to staff, rather than losing jobs that might never return.
In addition, the CBI has warned of a cliff edge and urged replacement support for jobs if furlough support ends next month. The UK manufacturing sector has warned of a “jobs bloodbath”. So much of this could be avoided. The goal of the job retention scheme, as the Chancellor told us, was to save jobs and build a bridge through the pandemic, but if furlough support is withdrawn next month, his bridge will self-evidently have not reached the other side. The investment to support and save jobs was laudable, but the task is not finished and the UK Government should not—must not—walk away from an economic disaster that is avoidable. They must not allow events simply to take their course.
Today, we on the SNP Benches urge the Government to go further and do more to save potentially millions of jobs. I echo the calls made last night in the Scottish Parliament and urge an extension to the job retention scheme. Despite the leader of the Labour party in Scotland having said that it makes no sense for the UK Government to pull away support now in one fell swoop, bewilderingly—almost inexplicably—Labour MSPs last night voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament against a motion urging the continuation of that support. That is an act of betrayal and a dereliction of duty towards those in Scotland who are currently, and desperately, worried about their jobs and their families.
Voters in Scotland will not easily forgive or readily forget this act of political posturing from a so-called party of workers—a party that was happy to bail out the banks but voted against support for viable jobs in Scotland for the longer term. It is utterly bewildering, and if any Labour Member wants to intervene and explain why the Labour party in Scotland has done that, I will we more than happy to hear it, but I see that nobody is willing to do so.
There are no mixed messages or equivocation from the SNP Benches. We urge the UK Government to do the right thing: to look at the kind of forward planning and support done in countries such as Germany, and to protect our economy and jobs through these difficult times. If these calls go unheeded, we in Scotland will simply be further persuaded that we need those powers for ourselves to make our own decisions.
There is a tsunami of job losses heading our way. It is not inevitable. We can stem the tide. We urge the Government to use every tool at their disposal to do so, to extend support for jobs and to ensure that those who have been unjustly excluded are given the support they need during these difficult times.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are behind where we thought we would be, so therefore we are introducing a four-minute limit from the very beginning.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
At the start of my remarks, I place on record my appreciation of and gratitude to the Government for the coronavirus job retention scheme. In Wimbledon, it has meant that 12,500 people have a chance of their livelihoods and their futures.
Inevitably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has already said, as this country returns to work and the economy starts to revive, we are likely to see a very different economy from that which we saw pre-covid. We are wrong to try to pretend anything other than that. While some say, “Let’s extend furlough, but in a targeted way,” the questions to whom, how much and for how long remain unanswered.
In July, surely the Chancellor was right to say,
“I will never accept unemployment as an unavoidable outcome.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 974.]
As we look to the future, instead of a blanket extension of the furlough, is the Chancellor not right to ask for new, innovative, creative and effective ways to support the economy and people’s livelihoods? It is not a question of whether we are supporting jobs, but of how we do it.
On the protection of jobs, I have spoken about the arts sector many times. I say to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that I welcome the recent package for the arts sector, but he will know that most of that is going to the institutions rather than the workers. May I suggest that, particularly for those in the theatre sector, he looks at a wage subsidy scheme that allows them to continue so that when theatres reopen, they will be there? Much the same applies to the events industry, which is a huge industry with a lot of jobs in Wimbledon.
The Government have made much of targeting infrastructure, and they are right to do so, but they must look at the economic activities and train people for those activities in the future. Economic development zones are not a new idea but, armed with investment and training incentives, they would be zones of opportunity, investment and employment. Those zones could be aligned to, for instance, a new technologies adoption fund: 3D printing will be the tool-making of the future, and for people to have those jobs, we need to skill them for the future.
For young people, the prospect of securing a foothold in the labour market as they transition from education to employment should be a realistic ambition. This Government’s plan for jobs—£100 million for 18 and 19-year-old school leavers—is clearly a step in the right direction. It is also right that the Government are looking at how they can support the people who have taken those courses into jobs. I welcome the support for apprenticeships and for new trainees being taken on, but may I suggest to my right hon. Friend one way of embedding that? We all know that work experience gives rise to permanent jobs, and I encourage him to look at ways of supporting people coming off those courses into work experience and into permanent jobs.
History also teaches us that downturns and recessions often temporarily remove that step into work for young people, but the over-40s, who find their jobs being eradicated, also need help. While I commend the work being done by the Government in doubling the number of job coaches and in some of the retraining schemes, I ask my right hon. Friend, when the Government are looking at support for jobs, to embrace those schemes and make them and the flexible support fund available to the over-40s as well.
Finally, the Government acted with extraordinary speed and effectiveness to create the coronavirus job retention scheme. That scheme was the right scheme at the right time, and 50% of those people have now returned to work. That does not make it the right scheme for all time.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
HMRC estimates that the level of fraudulent or incorrect claims under the CJRS to be 5% to 10%— between £1.75 billion and £3.5 billion—so even at the lower end, that money would be useful in extending the benefits of the scheme. When I asked about this, only five individuals had asked for the data that is held about them and about who has actually secured the funds that have come to them under the scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that further transparency would allow more of this money to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has said, available to people to extend the scheme?
Stephen Hammond
I am not aware of those numbers, but I thank the hon. Lady for making them available to me. I am sure that the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard her words. I want to make sure that the scheme has not been operated fraudulently, because we need all the money to go to people and to some of the great retraining schemes that the Government are introducing now. As I have said, the investment in future prosperity and the commitment to look at new and innovative ways of protecting and creating jobs is the key, and it is the right approach for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Just to give a bit more information, particularly to those who are going to take part in the next debate, the wind-ups will begin at 2.45 and this debate will conclude at 3.15 when we move on to the next debate. We are giving equal time, therefore, to both of them.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am glad to be able to take part in this important debate. Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister proclaimed:
“We need to get people off furlough and into work”.—[Official Report, 16 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 311.]
But he said that the scheme is not “the right way” to do that. Yet, he also stated that the Government will continue to apply the maximum creativity in putting their arms around the workforce in the UK. This contradiction is forcing millions into crippling uncertainty. The Government’s short-sighted decision to withdraw support for jobs and businesses across the UK will be nothing short of disastrous for people, for businesses and for jobs. We all know that. We have warned them time and again that this approach will result in job losses and hardship for ordinary people who are just trying to get through the coronavirus crisis.
According to IPPR research, 2 million viable jobs are at risk. Other countries have extended their schemes, why cannot we? In fact, we should. I am not arguing that the furlough scheme should be carried on just as it is. I am not arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach to job retention and I am certainly not asking the Government to throw money at every industry. What we need is a flexible, targeted support scheme beyond the autumn to save millions of people in vulnerable sectors from the jobs crisis. To avoid this inevitable jobs catastrophe, we need some key actions and changes to the furlough scheme. We need to expand part-time working and reward employers who give people hours rather than cut jobs. We need to provide training and support for those who cannot come back full time. We need to target sectors most in need, including retail, which is a major employer in my constituency of Blaydon and already suffering. We need to target hospitality and other people hit by local lockdowns. We need to provide certainty for workers and businesses, but, instead, what have we got? We have the job retention bonus, which is a scheme that will see taxpayers’ money going into businesses that were going to bring back workers anyway. My constituents do not need a bonus, they need a lifeline.
Things will only get worse if the Government continue with their plans to strip people of that lifeline shortly. Earlier this week, the north-east chamber of commerce said that it knows that the winding down of the job retention scheme is likely to lead to significant redundancies in the months ahead. The continued rise in the claimant count in my constituency in the north-east is an early indicator of that. Many of those people who are jobless and claiming at the moment are in the 18-to-24 age group. The crisis has had an unequal impact on young people in the north-east.
We know as well that some people have got on the job retention scheme as it is coming to an end, but there are other people who have been excluded, who have fallen through the cracks. So many businesses in my constituency tell me that they are not able to claim grants and they are not able to furlough themselves. These are not rich business people. They are not fat cats. They are people who are just working hard to make ends meet and to provide businesses and employment in the constituency. I hope that the Government will think again and consider extending the furlough scheme, but in a new form, which better reflects the needs of the people. That will give people in my constituency—both employees and entrepreneurs—a chance to survive.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate. I am glad that the motion welcomes the job retention scheme. It is clear from the contributions we have heard so far, from across the House, that the scheme has been an absolute lifeline for people’s jobs. It has certainly been a lifeline in Sevenoaks, where it has saved 12,000 jobs and been vital for so many institutions, from the brilliant Stag theatre to the equally brilliant Bricklayers Arms in Chipstead. But the question now is what we do next.
I will focus my remarks on women and women’s jobs, which have been disproportionately affected by the crisis. I will argue that we do that by encouraging opportunities for women to be economically active where possible, rather than not. It is worth dwelling at the outset on the impact of coronavirus on women. Before the crisis, we had a record 75% participation rate, but the pandemic has hit women’s jobs hard. Women are more likely to work in sectors that have been completely shut down, such as hospitality. The virus has increased the burden of unpaid care, disproportionately affecting women, according to McKinsey and other studies. Mothers have reduced their paid working hours as a result, and by more than fathers. Overall, women’s jobs are almost twice as likely to be vulnerable than men’s jobs, and there is a fear that the gender wage gap will rise because women’s jobs are more likely to be interrupted in the workplace than men’s jobs.
It is in that context that the furlough scheme has been absolutely crucial. Women are 14% more likely to be furloughed, and from July they have been able to come back flexibly, which is crucial. The flexibility shown by employers in relation to home working has also helped many. How do we make sure that women can continue at that high participation rate? How do we ensure that the impact they felt over the crisis does not continue to high rates of unemployment?
To continue furlough indefinitely would, in my view, risk rising female unemployment. It would keep women in jobs that simply, and very sadly, just do not exist. I argue that we should instead focus on encouraging employers to rehire; creating new jobs; supporting childcare and making sure that schools stay open; and encouraging employers to continue being flexible, and indeed to increase flexibility.
On rehiring, I disagree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). I think that the job retention bonus scheme will be crucial to allowing women to get back into work. As I have said, women are more likely to be furloughed, so the scheme is more likely to benefit them. It is something I welcome and encourage.
With regard to creating new jobs, Andy Haldane—I am sure that he will be quoted at length today—has said clearly that
“keeping… jobs on life support is in some ways prolonging the inevitable in a way that probably doesn’t help either the individual”.
I agree. What we need are new, flexible opportunities in the workplace, such as the green jobs encouraged by the green homes grant, and we should offer retraining opportunities. I hope that we will see that in the upcoming Budget, because that would really make a difference for women, enabling them to move into new jobs in the new workplace that we are inevitably coming into.
We also need to support childcare and keep schools open. It is critical that nurseries, childminders and schools stay open. Whatever happens over the next few months, it is absolutely essential that we make sure we do not see a drop-off in female employment rates, particularly as we see the end of furlough. I would also like to see continuing flexibility. The pandemic has caused a shift in working that has been fought for for years. It helps working parents. We should encourage it and see it continue.
To conclude, I welcome furlough, but continuing it for too long would risk women’s jobs in the long term. We need to focus on getting women economically active, back in work and supported by childcare.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
The coronavirus pandemic has caused widespread suffering for too many individuals and communities across the UK. We have the worst of both worlds: in addition to recording the highest number of excess covid-19 deaths in Europe, we are facing our worst ever recession, which is almost twice as severe as comparable European nations.
The furlough scheme has been an indispensable lifeline to millions of workers during the pandemic, yet the Government intend to sever this crucial support, which will have devastating consequences for people in Leicester and across the country. More than 4 million workers are still on furlough just weeks before we reach the Chancellor’s October cliff edge. The latest data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that that is more than one in 10 workers, but in some sectors the figure is as high as 41%. The Government should be targeting support where it is needed most, such as in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector, and in accommodation and food services activities, not withdrawing it across the board.
The Government cannot simply turn their back on workers. With coronavirus cases spiking across the country and our testing system in crisis, they cannot blindly hope that this crisis will magically resolve itself. I am gravely concerned that the abrupt ending of the job retention scheme will put more lives at risk, especially among the working poor. It is impossible for impoverished people to comply with guidance on self-isolation and social distancing. Cutting the job retention scheme will disproportionately impact women, and without proper protection from racism in the workplace, it will disproportionately impact African, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is therefore not just morally imperative but, in public health terms, in the best interests of everyone in our country that people’s basic needs are met.
My home city of Leicester has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus. It has been an incredibly difficult and tumultuous time for our residents, who continue to face coronavirus restrictions that other parts of the country do not. The economic impact on our city has been immense. I have been helping many Leicester East residents to access support. In April, I wrote to the Chancellor, urging him to widen the job retention scheme and in a sense, this is what we are debating here today and it is particularly hard that we have to do so.
It may be hard for this Government of the super-rich to understand, but many residents in Leicester do not have savings to fall back on if the furlough scheme ends abruptly. Even before the coronavirus hit, my constituency was suffering from an unacceptable stagnation in living standards. As of April 2019, the average weekly income for full-time employees in Leicester East was £420. That is £130 less per week than in the east midlands as a whole, and £160 less than the UK average. I am particularly worried by the number of people claiming unemployment benefits in Leicester East, which has more than doubled since the UK lockdown began. In March 2020, 2,145 Leicester residents claimed unemployment benefits; by August, that had shot up by 143% to 5,210 people.
Now is the time for the Government to prove that they work for the majority of people in the UK who live paycheque to paycheque. That means, as we enter a probable second spike, that the wellbeing and security of our communities must be prioritised above all else.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this important debate.
Protecting the livelihoods of 9.6 million people—9.6 million people who were at risk of being laid off—has been at the heart of the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme. That support is worth £37.5 billion. Since March, employers have been able to claim up to 80% of an individual’s monthly wage, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month. The scheme has been available for any employee paid via pay-as-you-earn across the entire UK. That is 29 million people.
By the time the scheme ends in October, it will have been in place for eight months. It was designed to help us through the most challenging period. I say to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) that the Chancellor has continually adjusted the scheme, so that we do not have a hard cliff edge. She may have missed it, but from July the Chancellor allowed adjustments for flexibility of working. That was absolutely right, to help people back into business and to help companies restart their operations. In August, employers were allowed to start contributing towards some of the costs of those salaries—around just 5%—to make the scheme affordable. We need to be clear: our scheme is more generous than any other European country in terms of its coverage. It extends to all employers, not just small businesses. On payments, the Government are paying 80% of an employee’s wage, with only modest requirements for company contributions. It is more generous than other countries and we have now seen many other countries all around the globe starting to wind down their schemes. The furlough scheme was right at the time, but things have changed. We should not continue a scheme that incentivises people to be economically inactive.
So we have a globe-leading response designed to protect and retain jobs. That is recognised on the high streets in villages, towns and cities across the UK. In my Warrington South constituency, the furlough scheme has protected 15,400 incomes, helping families through the most difficult period of the lockdown. But I hear from those families that they want to return to work. They want support to get back into jobs. We know the furlough scheme has saved jobs: more than half of all employees who were furloughed have now gone back to work. That comes from Office for National Statistics data released just this week. More than 90% of those who came off furlough before the start of June continue to work for and be paid by the same employer who furloughed them. That is evidence that the scheme is delivering on its aims of saving jobs and retaining the connection between employees and their workplace.
I took time during the recess to meet the team at Warrington jobcentre, who have done an incredible job of responding to claimants in a speedy manner so that people who needed payments got them quickly. It is fair to say that without the introduction of the universal credit system, that simply would not have been possible.
The UK came into this crisis in a strong position. Warrington’s economy remains one of the strongest in the north-west, thanks to careful Conservative management of the economy over the past 10 years. We came into the crisis with public finances in a good position, which enabled us to react strongly.
It is important to differentiate between the short term and the medium term. In the short run, we need to drive a recovery, as the Government are doing, including via the tax system and through more borrowing where necessary. But in the medium term, we need to restore sustainability to our public finances. That is what the British people expect from their Government. I know the Chancellor will be looking at creative, innovative and effective ways to support our economy as we move forward.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate, and on her robust and eloquent speech. Like her, I want to again give a warm welcome to the job retention scheme, which has indeed operated like a lifeboat for many of my constituents and for people across the United Kingdom. I think that welcome is pretty much unanimous, but what I think Members are saying today, certainly on the Opposition Benches, is that, first, we believe there was and is room for some more people on that lifeboat, and that too many have been unfairly excluded from it. Secondly, having provided that life raft, it would be utterly nonsensical, a monumental mistake, to suddenly sink it or kick everybody off it at the end of October while we are still in very deep and dangerous waters, and a long way from safety.
The Government say that the scheme cannot last for ever—I do not think anybody in this House says that it should—but that is not a reason or justification for stopping it on 31 October. That is an arbitrary date. It bears no relation to where we are in the pandemic, or where we are in terms of opening up again and recovery taking hold. It means that an avalanche of viable jobs are just going to be destroyed. So it is disastrous for workers, bad for employers and bad news for the economic recovery. As my hon. Friend made clear, it is also bad for the Government’s balance sheet. We know that a quarter of the job retention scheme costs are recouped by the Exchequer straight away through social security savings and from tax paid by furloughed staff. As she pointed out, the analysis shows that, by extending the scheme by eight months, debt as a percentage of GDP would fall rather than increase, because of the impact it would have on growth in our economy.
Andy Carter
The hon. Gentleman talks about an arbitrary date of 31 October for ending the scheme. Does he have in mind a date when he would like it to end, or should it continue for ever?
Stuart C. McDonald
I said specifically that the scheme would not continue for ever and it cannot continue for ever, but that should be based on an analysis of the economy, where we are at and the number of jobs available. Conservative Members keep telling us that people should be looking to move into employment, but any analysis by any major think-tank says that those job opportunities are just not there at the moment, so we have to wait for a time when the economy is on a more even keel, which will not, on any indication, be by 31 October.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As the hon. Gentleman possibly knows, the Liberal Democrats agree that the scheme should be kept going. We have specifically looked at June next year as a minimum, which would cost £10 billion. That is not much more than withdrawing the scheme would cost, as the Chancellor is proposing at the moment, and is a drop in the ocean compared with the eventual cost if we do not support the economy.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not want to put a date on it today, but the costed proposal from the Scottish Government, which has been looked at by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, is for an eight-month extension. That would save tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland, and even more across the United Kingdom, and pay for itself, because debt as a percentage of GDP would fall rather than rise. It makes perfect sense from every single point of view. It has to be about analysis rather than just picking a date in the calendar, which is essentially what the Government have done.
All in all, the scheme is a great investment, and a better one, as hon. Members have said, than the deadweight job retention bonus scheme. As we have heard, many countries are extending their similar schemes, and we should not be the outlier in that regard. There is an urgency about the situation, because employers are deciding right now what they are going to do with furloughed employees at the end of October, so we cannot wait. We need a commitment from the Government today.
The scheme does not require to be completely unchanged. We have heard about some of the flexibilities and the changes that were made as we went along, and more changes could be made as we go ahead. It could be targeted by sector, as some have suggested. There must be a focus on areas where there are local lockdowns or other restrictions. We could look at the other models that have been implemented by countries such as France and Germany, which involve short time and wage subsidies.
I join hon. Members in highlighting the desperate plight of those who have been left off the lifeboat altogether for totally unjust reasons. That includes a huge number of people who simply changed jobs at the wrong time; those who work only a small number of hours for a particular employer, which puts them below the minimum salary threshold; those paid in the form of dividends; and those working as PAYE freelancers, especially in industries such as TV and the arts, who have been hung out to dry.
Many came close to qualifying under the job retention scheme or the self-employment income support scheme, and it is heartbreaking that they were left qualifying for neither. The reality is that many have been left with nothing, or next to nothing, because they are not entitled to other support. Essentially, the Government response appears to be that it would be too hard to fix for everybody, but that is as nothing compared with the hardship that has been inflicted on my constituents.
In the context of the Government being happy to invest £10 billion in a job retention bonus scheme that is likely to have little impact, investing in support for those excluded people could be transformational for them. That may well be more labour-intensive for HMRC, rather than relying on real-time information submissions, but it can be done. As the Minister knows full well, there is a tax office in Cumbernauld that is set to close, possibly in the next few months. If he wants to keep that tax office open, I am sure that the employees there would be happy to do the work required to extend the scheme. At the end of the day, my constituents and the excluded across the UK are not asking for anything more than fairness. I hope that the Treasury will think again and offer those people a hand on to that lifeboat.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I know that some Members have applied to speak in both Back-Bench debates and I do not think it would be fair if they lost out on both debates, but the only way that we can adjust for that is by lowering the time limit to three minutes. I apologise; I do not like three-minute debates. I made the point last week that we have two debates of a similar nature and it would have been rather better, and more Members would have been able to speak, if we had had just one debate on this issue. I call Anthony Browne for three minutes.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on coming up with a policy so good that it gets a warm welcome from across the political spectrum. It is a delight to hear Labour and SNP Members praising Conservative party economic policy—a real triumph—but all good things come to an end. [Interruption.] I look forward to them praising the rest of the economic policies.
The proof is in the pudding. The latest Eurostat figures show that employment in the UK has dropped far less than in other European countries.
The second quarter this year versus the first quarter has seen a drop of 0.7%—that is half the drop in employment in Germany, one quarter the drop in France and one ninth the drop Ireland. We can demonstrably prove that we have been far more successful at preserving jobs in the UK.
Looking at the unemployment figures that we had just this week, there was a rise in unemployment, but it went from 3.9% to 4.1%. Most economic commentators believed that the rise in unemployment would be far greater. I very much welcome the fact that we have more strength in the labour market now than most people expected. Obviously, every job lost is bad news, and my heart goes out to anybody who has lost their job.
We have been hearing about the cliff edge, and there is a big question about how high that cliff edge is with 9.6 million people having been on furlough. Anecdotally, however, everyone I know who has been on furlough has now gone back to work. The latest figures from the ONS, which are from 15 August—over a month ago—show that only 11% of the workforce are on furlough. That is roughly 3 million people. If we look at the trajectory, we are probably now down to about 5%, with 1 million to 1.5 million still on furlough. I look forward to seeing the latest figures. We have another six weeks or so to go until the end of October, so it is not a cliff edge, but a tapering out. I very much welcome that, and again, that is tribute to the Chancellor’s policies and the flexibility, with employers being given nudges to get people back to work.
One of the most critical points is to understand the difference between protecting jobs, which is what the job retention scheme was about, and helping people find work at the end. There will be structural changes to the economy. The airline industry, for example, which the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned, will not be the same size—not next year, not the year after and not in three years’ time. What are we going to do for the people in the airline industry? Are we going to put them on the job retention scheme for ever? At some point, we have to move on, look forward and actually help people find jobs, and that is why I very much welcome the schemes that the Chancellor is focusing on now. Rather than paying people to stay at home and not work, we are providing incentives for employers, such as the kickstart scheme or the bonuses for apprenticeship, to help people who are out of work get back into work. That is the way forward.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Labour party will do everything within its power to convince the Government that they need to find an urgent solution to the pending jobs crisis of withdrawing the job retention scheme next month. Trade unions and businesses agree. For us, jobs are not about statistics; jobs are about people, families and communities, and they just do not know what the future will bring. Time is running out. Redundancy notices are being written now. We are facing the worst economic crisis we have ever seen. My constituency is forecast to be the second worst hit place in the country, and that is why I am standing here today.
I look at our twin cities of Münster in Germany, where people have an additional 14 months’ security, or our twin city of Dijon in France, where people have until January and then a possible extension until July 2022. Workers in my city do not have that security and safety. They are scared because they could be on the dole before Christmas.
The Treasury should invest in these jobs because they are good jobs. The problem we saw with this Government after 2010—we are seeing it now—is that if we do not invest in good-quality jobs, we end up with low pay and low-wage jobs. That means low productivity and less money going back to the Treasury. That is why we are calling right now for more flexibility to be built into the job retention scheme and for help for the sectors that are struggling, such as tourism, hospitality and leisure, which are so dominant in my local economy.
Yesterday, I raised with the Prime Minister the fact that 17,700 people in my constituency are currently on furlough. Their future looks bleak unless the Government act. The 8 million people who visit York each year just are not there, and people in my constituency are saying that they are facing their third winter in a row as they move into the next season without the support they desperately need. Some 22% of jobs are forecast to go in York—one in five jobs. That is terrifying. That is why we need the Government to step up now. Time is not on our side.
Looking at companies in my city, employers are worried, too. Great Rail Journeys, established in 1947, has already had to lay off staff and has 80 members of staff currently furloughed. It helped people at the start of this crisis to cancel or postpone their bookings, and now they are not seeing more money coming in. We absolutely need to support these parts of the economy.
Finally, I say this to the Minister: I stand here for the sake of the livelihoods of my constituents. They need their jobs preserving, and I look to him to do that.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As we are all only too aware, neither the health crisis nor the economic crisis is over, and we are going into the winter. In both respects, the furlough scheme has a role to play to protect workers until our economic recovery is truly under way. I would like to thank the public servants who have administered the job retention schemes. In many cases, we have had much contact with them, and they have done an excellent job. Of course, as we have already heard, Germany and France have recognised this and taken the considered decision to extend their equivalent furlough schemes.
Let us consider the unequal fiscal settlement between Westminster and the devolved nations. While the main levers of our response, such as health, are devolved in Wales, Westminster doggedly refuses to cede further economic powers to the Welsh Government to underpin these health interventions. Even as the UK Government borrow their way out of the immediate crisis, Westminster continues to enforce an artificial cap on the Welsh Government’s borrowing ability. It is one rule for Westminster and another for the devolved nations.
Of course, this has an effect. Welsh Government-mandated local lockdowns without furlough support could mean families being forced to choose between putting food on the table and statutory sick pay of less than £100 a week. This is an unfair and an unworkable choice, and it highlights the real consequences of Westminster ending furlough too early for Wales. During the good times, refusing to allow Wales the financial means to help ourselves might be interpreted as dog in the manger behaviour, but in these hard times, it is wilfully obstructionist.
Our response is interconnected, but the UK Government intervene in unforeseen and possibly unforeseeable ways. For example, outdoor centres such as the Urdd in Glan-llyn near Bala in my constituency—but across north Wales and, I am sure, across England as well—are struggling as the Department for Education in England continues to forbid such school-based activities, yet the UK Government, rightly in my opinion, insist that schools should reopen and office workers go back to their offices. The workers at these outdoor centres are caught as the collateral between different policies, and where do they stand? They look to lose their livelihoods.
We believe that furlough must continue, specifically for severely affected sectors such as tourism, leisure, hospitality and the arts, which have lost a key proportion of their earnings season and are now heading into a bleak winter. Some of them tell me they have lost two thirds of their earnings season. The important message, if I could leave this with the House, is that these are not zombie businesses. Their business model was viable and they were flourishing before covid, and they only need to be conveyed safely through the winter season to have a viable and flourishing future. Anything else would be an abdication of responsibility by this Government and would risk undoing the collective sacrifice of the past several months across all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Our economy has contracted by one fifth in the last quarter, and it is clear that we have entered a great and deep recession. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that unemployment will peak in quarter 4 at between 9.7% and 13.2%. At 13.2%, that is absolutely unprecedented, at least according to the figures available from the Office for National Statistics, and even at 9.7% it is unlike anything we have seen for nearly 40 years. One in 10 people could be out of work. The Chancellor has said over and again that the economic challenges we are facing are unprecedented, and he is right to say that: the situation is unprecedented. The projected unemployment figures show that in black and white.
Of course, we have welcomed the job retention scheme and it has been a life support, as has been said, but why are we stopping the treatment when the economy is still sick? That is why I do not understand the reason for the blanket withdrawal of this scheme, especially after the Government’s mixed messaging and inability to implement a proper track and trace system, which is causing a second peak and local lockdowns up and down the country. The public health crisis is driving this recession, so the economic crisis will not go away until we get a grip of that. The Government need to look at what sectors are most affected and extend the scheme in those areas to keep people in their jobs.
As well as protecting jobs, we must also protect people’s rights at work. It is disgraceful how some employers are using this crisis to drive down pay and conditions. For example, the staff at British Gas are rightly standing up against the absolutely outrageous fire and rehire tactics of Centrica, their employer, and British Airways staff are going through the same challenges. That is not about getting people back to work; it is about putting millions of people’s jobs and security at risk.
Crises such as the one we are living through should not be seen as opportunities to restructure businesses for shareholders. Instead, we must come together to ensure that, in the Chancellor’s own words, no one is left behind. Well, 3 million people have been left behind, so we need to plug the gaps in the job retention scheme for the people who have begun to work after the cut-off point before the lockdown. We also need to extend the scheme where it is appropriate to do so and to defend the rights of people in work by banning the disgraceful fire and rehire tactics that are being used to force down wages and conditions.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Like many Members on both sides of the House who have spoken, I come to praise the furlough scheme and to beg the Government not to bury it. There is no doubt that it has saved many families from poverty over the past six months. A recent estimate shows that something like 9.6 million people have been on the furlough scheme, and there are probably 6 million still on it. The point made by many people here today is: why stop it now? That is a position that I absolutely support.
We are facing a really uncertain future, and this country will depend upon an effective test, trace and isolate process being in place if we are to live with this virus in the medium term. That, more than anything else, is what is needed to keep our economy up and running. Much has been said in the Chamber over the past week about testing and tracing, but I also want to highlight the point about isolating. If we want people to isolate effectively to keep infection rates down, we must provide them with the financial support to do so.
This is about more than the furlough scheme; it is also about the Government’s approach to the whole economy and how they will ride the economic dislocation that we will all face in the months to come. We are calling on the Government not just to extend the furlough scheme until next year but to make it available to anyone who needs it, because the weakness of targeting certain sectors is that people will be left out. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned, over the past six months that has affected about 3 million people who earn their income in many different ways.
A lot of support seems to be targeted at people who pay mortgages and earn salaries, but we all know that there are many more ways to earn a living and that many people have been missed out. We need a strategy for the whole economy to help us with the approaching economic dislocation. We need investment in green jobs. We need those people who are going to lose their jobs in the near future to retrain urgently to work on retrofitting houses with better heating, on renewable power and on electric vehicle infrastructure. I echo what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said about ensuring that the needs of women and minority groups are considered as we think about this just transition to a greener future.
I want to highlight the Public Accounts Committee’s findings on the furlough scheme in its inquiry last week. It found that between 5% and 10% of the scheme had been lost to fraud, so I urge the Government to look at that and to ensure that we have financial sustainability for the scheme for as long as it is needed. We need better controls to ensure that the money is being spent where it is needed. Echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said in the earlier debate, I also urge the Government to cancel the job retention bonus scheme. Those businesses that have already got people back into work do not need the extra money. That money needs to go to those who are still facing an uncertain future.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We know it has been a tough time for business, just as it has been a tough time for everyone, and the support so far has been invaluable, but what was the alternative? Should we have allowed companies that had been trading successfully for many years and been responsible for thousands of well-paid, permanent, highly skilled jobs to go under because of a short-term disruption that has impacted on everyone? Some of the biggest employers in my constituency, such as Vauxhall and Airbus, fit that description. They should play a huge role in the future prosperity of my area, but at the moment they face uncertainty. We cannot afford to lose our place as a world leader in aviation. The Airbus plant at Broughton is a centre of excellence in wing-making and the workforce are among the most highly skilled in the sector. Those jobs deserve to be supported.
Turning to Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port, we were all very pleased to see production start again last month, although due to reduced demand in the car market and social distancing measures in the plant, not everyone has gone back in. As it seems clear that social distancing rules will be here for some time, getting back to full capacity may be some time off, so why is the support not being provided to recognise that? The automotive sector is not going to come out of this as quickly as other sectors. We need that support soon or we risk losing the very jobs that we have fought so long and so hard to keep.
We must not forget the 3 million or so excluded people who have not received any assistance at all. Some may be able to carry on, but as local lockdown restrictions continue to increase and the Government seem incapable of stopping a rise in infections, it is likely that there will be further economic damage to come—perhaps not as widespread as earlier this year, but to those caught up in it, totally ruinous. Those involved in the wedding industry and social clubs, for example, whose main business is dealing with large functions, cannot expect to be operating fully for a considerable time. We need a Government prepared to listen and prepared to act to develop a more nuanced and sector-specific package.
I hope that we will not keep hearing the same story from Conservative Members saying that we cannot pay people to sit at home forever, because if they actually listened to what we are saying, they would know that that is not what we are asking for. We want the businesses and sectors that were successful and were keeping people in employment before the pandemic struck to be recognised for what they are—an essential part of the UK economy that, going forward, we will need more than ever. We cannot afford to throw them under a bus now because of problems outside their control, because many of these jobs, particularly the well-paid, secure jobs in sectors like manufacturing, will not come back. We need a commitment from Government that they will provide long-term support to safeguard the future of businesses and to support jobs. Otherwise all the effort that has been put into job retention so far will have been for nothing.
The most recent figures we have suggest that there are 14,500 people furloughed in Ellesmere Port and Neston alone. Let that figure sink in—it is an awful lot of people. Hopefully many of them are returning to work, or will be shortly, but even if three quarters of them do so, unemployment will still double in my constituency. It has already doubled once this year as a result of the national lockdown, and we cannot afford for it to double again. Do this Government really want to preside over a 1980s-style jobs crisis? I really do not think they do.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
In March, the Chancellor promised to do whatever it takes to get us through this crisis, but six months on, we now have one of the deepest recessions in the OECD. We have already seen the fastest rise in unemployment since the financial crisis, with almost 700,000 more people unemployed—and that is before the furlough scheme is wound down. This is set to happen in just 44 days’ time, which means that we are weeks away from an unemployment crisis cliff edge the likes of which this country has not seen in generations. The Bank of England predicts that more than 1 million jobs will go by Christmas, while others predict that ending furlough as planned will lead to 4.5 million people being unemployed—a level higher than even during the great depression of the 1930s. That includes an estimated nearly 6,500 jobs that are at risk in Coventry South. This would be an utter disaster. These are not just statistics; these are people’s lives. Every job lost is another family pushed closer to or deeper into poverty. It is another child going hungry at night. It is another sleepless night of worry about rent or mortgage payments and how the bills will be paid.
But this cliff edge is not inevitable. A deepening jobs crisis can be prevented—it just takes political will. Look at France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere—their Governments have stepped in and extended wage support schemes. If they can do it, so can we. This is demanded by those from trade unions like mine, Unite, which last week launched the “SOS for jobs!” campaign, to the head of the CBI, who has said that it is wrong to pull away support at the end of October. I urge the Government: listen to trade unions and listen to businesses; do not pursue a reckless one-size-fits-all winding down of the furlough scheme, but instead step in and extend targeted support to protect jobs, workers and livelihoods, and bring in urgent measures to support everyone who fell through the cracks of the support scheme from the very beginning.
But the Government should not just leave it there. We do not just need to save jobs: we need to create new, good, unionised jobs. I urge the Government to invest in our industries and in our communities and bring forward a green new deal. This could create more than 1 million green new jobs, with programmes ranging from retrofitting homes to make them greener and bills cheaper, to building up green industries in areas like Coventry that have skilled workers and proud manufacturing industries.
These are urgent demands. We are at the edge of a jobs cliff edge. Workers in Coventry South need the Government to act to avoid an unemployment tsunami. I urge the Government: protect jobs now and invest in our green future before it is too late.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on achieving this debate. It must surely be evident to the Government from the number and variety of occasions when this subject is raised by Members in this place that there is a general feeling across the House and in the country that we need to continue the support that the job retention scheme has offered.
I will not subject right hon. and hon. Members to a repeat of my contribution to last week’s debate, other than to say that we are in a crisis in this country that poses the greatest threat to our health, our economy and the wellbeing of individual households across the UK of any in our lifetimes. It is only because of the strength of the job retention scheme so far that we have been able to protect about 10 million jobs. Seven million people are currently supported by the furlough scheme, and to withdraw it at the end of October seems rash and too soon.
A Government Member said a little while ago that the scheme got us through the worst of the crisis and there is no longer any need for it. Surely we all saw the news today that the north-east of England has gone back into lockdown, posing an immediate threat to jobs, retail and wholesale in that part of the country. If we were in any doubt, surely that is evidence that we need to continue to support all industrial sectors through the crisis.
As I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that continuing the scheme until June 2021 would cost the country about £10 billion. That might seem like a large amount of money, but it will be dwarfed into insignificance by the long-term cost to our economy, our wellbeing and each sector if we pull the rug from underneath them at the moment. There should, instead, be a bridge to transition us from where we are now to whatever our economy will look like afterwards. This is an opportunity to support families, to invest in a transition to green jobs and to ensure that this country has a future that is economically stable.
Millions of people in this country who are currently on the furlough scheme look to us for support and reassurance about their future, and to hear that they will not face the financial hardship that many of them fear. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not let them down by removing that support too soon.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The coronavirus job retention scheme is a pragmatic approach to supporting workers, protecting jobs and bolstering the economy for a rapid recovery after lockdown. It has been a relief for many of my constituents to be placed on furlough rather than being made redundant, but many of those same constituents face fear and anxiety about the Chancellor’s cliff edge next month. It is critical that the Government act with urgency to extend the furlough, focusing on sectors of the economy that have been particularly hard hit by coronavirus and for which operation as normal is not yet possible.
Unemployment causes economic hardship, but it also has a devastating effect on health and wellbeing. It increases depression and anxiety, cardiovascular disease and mortality. That is why the scheme matters so much. Mass unemployment is not a price that communities up and down the country can afford to pay for the pandemic. We need a flexible approach to furlough that is targeted at sectors of the economy that provide good jobs, but that have been particularly hard hit by coronavirus and cannot return to business as usual.
In my constituency, we benefit enormously from cultural industries and the performing arts—both national institutions in central London and local theatres such as South London theatre and Brixton House, which is due to open a brand new building this year, and grassroots music venues. They make culture accessible and provide vital experience and employment, particularly for our young people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. The cultural sector helps us to process the events going on around us, which is more important than ever in this time of turmoil. The sector needs sustained support if we are not to lose the precious things it adds to our communities and our society.
ExcludedUK estimates that more than 2 million self-employed people have been left without meaningful support during the coronavirus pandemic. I have been contacted by countless constituents who have fallen through the gaps. The scheme is simply too inflexible and does not account for diverse forms of self-employment; I wish to highlight, in particular, the newly self-employed, people taking parental leave or sick leave in the past three years, and those with a combination of PAYE and earnings from self-employment.
The coronavirus pandemic has brought enough heartbreak and tragedy to our communities, and I urge the Chancellor to act now, to show flexibility and creativity, and to avoid adding the tragedy of mass unemployment to the burden our communities have to bear.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate. Last week’s Opposition day debate on the furlough scheme demonstrated that there is huge demand in all parts of the House for raising constituents’ cases, so we have a welcome further opportunity to do that today. Since March, we have all been receiving a huge amount of correspondence from constituents whose livelihoods have been affected by the pandemic. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my casework team, who were newly hired just as the pandemic hit and have done a fantastic job in getting up to speed and directing so many constituents to the different, varied and sometimes complex support schemes run by local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
Across the whole of Fife nearly 30% of all employees were furloughed. That is a huge number and I give credit to the Treasury for its implementation of the scheme. It is an example of how pooling and sharing resources has allowed the prevention of huge job losses. We have already heard today that all this is put in jeopardy if the scheme ends next month unilaterally, and I re-echo the calls that have been made. I cannot stress enough how vital the scheme is to so many businesses in my constituency. But for all the good the furlough has done, the painful reality for a not insignificant minority of people is that they have missed out on the scheme, for reasons that are, in essence, arbitrary. I welcome the recognition of that in the motion.
For some, that reason is just a date. One of my constituents had not been in work, he started a new job on 29 February and the cut-off date meant he was ineligible for the scheme. He was let go from his job and there was no recent employer to rehire him. Another constituent was placed in a similar situation. She was switching employment just as covid-19 hit, and her new employer could not open the business because of the lockdown and so simply could not take her on. The rules of the job retention scheme were adjusted so that old employers could rehire those people caught in limbo, but that was a workaround, not a solution that is an any way meaningful. She was eligible for furlough but was not furloughed because her old employer refused to rehire her so that she could be furloughed, although that would have come at no cost to them. So she has missed out and instead has had to apply for jobseeker’s allowance.
Even for those who were furloughed the scheme has not always been perfect. One constituent, a childcare agency worker on a zero-hours contract, contacted me because the way furlough is calculated has meant that her regular full-time hours are not considered, and she has experienced an incredibly severe drop in earnings. That has meant an incredibly tough few months trying to survive on very little.
Those are three cases, but there are many more. For thousands of people in my constituency, this has been a difficult year. A lot of people who never thought they would be relying on our welfare system are now doing so because they did not meet arbitrary eligibility criteria and slipped through the gaps. It will now be clear to so many people that what is deemed as our “safety net” does not work. As we look to rebuild, I hope we will reflect on our welfare system and on whether it provides the right support for those who need it. I am increasingly convinced that a more substantial, universal safety net has to be the way forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To sit down at 2.45 pm, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Minister and the Government for all that they have done through the furlough scheme and the help for businesses, because without that many, many businesses would have failed. I wish to make four quick points. First, the prospect of an estimated 4 million unemployed is, in itself, a reason to pull out all the stops to see employees able to get back on their feet and start back in their paid roles. It is important that provision is made and consideration is given to how that might happen.
My local high street has survived and seems to be getting out the other side of this, but we have tourism in our area—it is a core economic policy for the Ards and North Down Borough Council—-so we need to ensure that that is still there. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the four-day working week as a possibility, looking at the costs and benefits at this time. I implore the Government to look proactively for solutions, such as a four-day week, rather than simply close the scheme.
I would also like to quickly mention the airline and aerospace industry. Furlough is the only way that some of my constituents can pay their bills, and to go from a pilot’s wages to universal credit is just not on. If those people are back in their job in a few months’ time, they will be paying high taxes and national insurance. My final point is about the many businesses slowly bringing staff off furlough. I believe it is important in the short term to ensure that staff are retained on furlough, so that they have those jobs in the long term.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I believe I have eight minutes to speak, and I will do my best to keep to it. These are important debates, and I have some sympathy with your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, about seeing whether we can merge them.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for leading the debate with a fantastic and robust speech. The key point she made was about the costs versus the savings of the job retention scheme, with the social cost of ending it too early being that millions of jobs will be affected, including in the aviation sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made the important point that we are in deep and dangerous waters, and we could extend the furlough scheme for eight months, rather than end it on an arbitrary date. I certainly support his view that tax offices should be kept open. He made the case well for Cumbernauld, and I have opposed HMRC office closures across the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Treasury could take a leaf out of the Department for Work and Pensions’ book. Two years ago, half the jobcentres in Glasgow were closed, and the Department for Work and Pensions is now having to reopen them as a result of the demand that it believes will be placed on them. It is also having to look at opening jobcentres in other areas where it closed them two years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran referred to the bewildering vote in Holyrood last night, but I have to say, it was not as bewildering as the statements we heard from a number of Conservative colleagues that the job retention scheme was somehow a key feature of Conservative economic theory. That was not the case in March, when such a scheme had not yet been put in place by the UK, and when Opposition parties were raising examples of schemes put in place by other countries to support workers. It was that pressure, I would suggest, from all Opposition parties and Opposition Members asking the Government to look at international examples and put in place a scheme to protect workers that was the reason for the job retention scheme.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made an important point about local lockdowns. If, for reasons of public health, there must be a local lockdown in an area of the United Kingdom and the job retention scheme no longer exists, what support will be made available? Are we really suggesting that people and businesses should make a choice whether to follow the public health guidance or to challenge and ignore it because they are not getting support? That is a dangerous path to go down and a reason why we should consider extending the scheme. No one should have to make that choice. There were optimistic forecasts in March that this would be a three or four-month event, and then things would suddenly get back to normal, but that is not the case, and I think the optimistic forecasts about what happens next will also not take place.
I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who rightly said that people will have to make choices, and some of those choices are unacceptable if the job retention scheme is not extended. I also echo the remarks of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). The pressure on the constituency office teams of every Member since March has been considerable. Whether you have been a Member for decades or came in the door in December, we can all agree that this is the busiest that any constituency office team has been. Part of the reason is having to address inquiries from constituents about the nuts and bolts of the job retention scheme. For example, some people who were new starts in March were missing out, and we had to pressure the Government to make those sorts of changes.
As has been said, extending the furlough scheme by eight months would save 61,000 jobs. In August, in Scotland, 34.4% of staff in the accommodation and food services were still on furlough; in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector, it was 57.5%. These are key sectors of the economy and are viable jobs going forward. Sectors such as the arts, entertainment and recreation, for example, are key parts of the economy that take on young workers and people not interested in working in a conventional workplace—say, an office or factory—and are key to going forward and a key part of the rebuild and of putting young people into work.
We can no longer have vague promises of creative solutions. As several Members have said, according to some estimates, unemployment could be greater than in the great depression of the 1930s. According to some assumptions, there could be 4.5 million people unemployed—even higher than the unemployment in the 1930s. We are seeing an explosion of redundancies, while the Government are saying they will do whatever it takes, but the point has been well made: it has not stopped Centrica, British Airways and other employers who wish to fire and rehire. I hope the Government will look very sympathetically at the private Member’s Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), because that practice really needs to end.
We are in a serious situation now, given the number of employers who have announced job losses: Rolls-Royce, 9,000; Jaguar Land Rover, 1,100; John Lewis, 1,300; Boots, 4,000; Marks and Spencer, 950; Alexander Dennis, a bus company in Falkirk, 650; Costa, 1,650. These will all have serious economic impacts, and we need to do everything we can to ensure that those jobs are saved. I hope the Government do accept the demands of the Treasury Select Committee that they look carefully at extending the job retention scheme. I hope they will do that.
In closing, not one Member has said that the job retention scheme should go on forever, but extending it by eight months is a sensible proposition, and as others have said, we need to look at what other countries are doing and match that.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate.
We have heard some excellent contributions from across the House, and it has been reassuring to hear so much consensus, not just on the Labour Benches, but from SNP Members and the Liberal Democrats. We even heard a short but sweet contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and not forgetting of course the contribution from Plaid Cymru too.
Alongside those excellent contributions was a rather depressing sense of déjà vu, because just last week the shadow Chancellor warned that our country was in the grip of a jobs crisis, and she warned that the crisis would intensify if the Government failed to change course. This week, those warnings came to pass, with the latest unemployment figures. Between March and August, 695,000 workers disappeared from the payroll and the claimant count more than doubled and now stands at 2.7 million. The number of vacancies in August was almost half that we saw at the same time last year. We have warned for months that a one-size-fits-all approach risks fuelling unemployment, ruining lives and risking the economic recovery that we need following this crisis; but, instead of listening, the Chancellor seems determined to roll back one of the Government’s most effective responses to this crisis, the job retention scheme.
A total of 9.6 million jobs have been furloughed through the job retention scheme, including 17,500 in my constituency. It peaked at 8.9 million on 8 May, and most recent estimates showed 13% of all jobs still furloughed in the two weeks up to 9 August. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), in so many sectors the picture is far bleaker: 51% of those in arts, entertainment and recreation furloughed; 27% of those in accommodation and food services furloughed; and 19% of those in transport and storage furloughed.
That is not surprising. We have said consistently that there are many businesses and some sectors that are inevitably hit harder and for longer, through no fault of their own. Indeed, at this very moment more communities across the country are facing local lockdown. More businesses are facing closure or severe disruption through no fault of their own.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) reminded us, the Chancellor said at the outset of the crisis that he would do “whatever it takes”, but there are communities across this country—millions of people, in fact—who have had no support at all, who do not think the Chancellor is doing whatever it takes. In fact, a Chancellor who we were happy to support when he announced the job retention scheme is looking increasingly stubborn and inflexible, determined to roll back the furlough scheme by asking employers already to contribute more to the costs and rolling it up altogether in just six weeks’ time.
The IPPR has warned that 2 million jobs could be lost as a result of that single decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke of so powerfully, the economic crisis we are experiencing is likely to worsen if the Government continue on this course, entrenching inequality in our country that was already intolerable before this crisis even began.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) pointed out, possibly quite reasonably, that it is unusual to see a policy from a Conservative Chancellor receiving so much support and acclamation from the Opposition Benches, but there is a good reason for that. As we have already heard from other hon. Members, the job retention scheme did not fall out of the sky and it certainly was not the brainchild of the Chancellor alone. The reason it was so successful was that the Chancellor listened to calls from the Opposition for wage support and even got business representatives and the trade unions around the table to design the scheme.
There is a model there for the Chancellor to follow: one that is listening, one that is inclusive and one that recognises that if we are serious about tackling economic inequality and injustice and about getting Britain working again, we need the voice of the workers at the table. Sadly, the Chancellor has stopped listening to the voice of labour—the official voice of labour represented here on the Opposition Benches, and the official voice of labour that we heard this week at the TUC congress.
If the Chancellor will not listen to the voice of labour, if he has stopped caring about the interests of labour and workers across the country, perhaps he will listen to business voices—the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce, and businesses up and down the country—calling on him to show some understanding of the long-tail impact of this public health crisis and the impact it is having on their businesses and their ability to keep good people in good jobs, in viable businesses that just need that bit more time.
Perhaps the Chancellor will listen to the economists and the think tanks urging him to show a more flexible approach to furlough and to take, as we have called for, a sector-by-sector approach to ending the furlough scheme. If he will not listen to them, perhaps he will listen to his own MPs. An increasing number of Conservative MPs have said publicly what many more are saying privately in the Tea Room: that it is a mistake to wind up the furlough scheme and a mistake to take this one-size-fits-all approach.
Indeed, that call was reflected in the cross-party but Conservative-led Treasury Committee of this House.
We heard from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that the Government are looking at taking a more creative and innovative approach. We have heard again today, as we have heard so often from Government Members, that it would be a mistake to continue with a blanket extension of the furlough scheme. No one has ever called for a blanket extension of the furlough scheme. The fact that so many fewer people are currently furloughed tells us that a blanket extension is not necessary. However, we know that many people in many sectors continue to be disproportionately affected and it is right that the Government should reflect that in a more flexible approach to the job retention scheme.
We shall doubtless hear again in the next debate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) made so powerfully. Let us not forget the 3 million people in this country who have not benefited from the Chancellor’s one-size-fits-all approach: the excluded. Other countries show us that a different way and a different choice are possible. There have been extended schemes in the Republic of Ireland, France and Germany. In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned that the twin towns of Münster in Germany and Dijon in France have extended schemes. Our Government’s approach just does not cut the mustard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) among others pointed out, we are still waiting for the aviation deal that was promised in March. While on that point, I must reply to the claim by Scottish National party Members that the Scottish Labour party opposes calling on the UK Government to extend the furlough scheme. Last night, the SNP attempted to rewrite a Scottish Labour motion setting out the action needed by the Scottish Government to bail out the aviation sector and provide the support it needs. I cannot say I am surprised because it is a pattern that we often see. SNP Members are happy to come here and rightly challenge the UK Government to use their powers and resources to support jobs, workers and industries across the country, but the SNP Government are not prepared to use their own powers and resources. They are good at passing the buck, but terrible at taking responsibility for their decisions.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made some powerful points about the need to get women into work. She talked about the support that should be on offer for women, particularly childcare, retraining and providing new opportunities for people who find themselves out of work. That support is not yet in place and I hope that the Government hear her call.
We are told that we should let people lose their jobs now and be released from furlough because they will find other jobs. Those who make that claim are apparently ignorant of the fact that there are no other jobs yet for people to go to and that putting people out of work now means that they are staring at the grim reality of Britain’s social insecurity system.
I urge the Government to consider the costs of not acting, of allowing unemployment to rise further, of the personal tragedies and human misery that means for families across the country, and of the further, avoidable damage it will inflict on our regional economies and our economy as a whole. Maybe then those on the Treasury Bench will go back to the Department of Health and Social Care and say that until the test, track and trace system is working properly, the economic and public health damage will be self-inflicted by the Government, and Britain will pay a heavy price, not just now but in the longer term. That will be on the Government.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on introducing the motion and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I thank other hon. Members for their contributions to an energetic, well-attended, engaged and interesting debate. As the hon. Lady will know—as we are all aware—we in this House continue to face an enormous challenge.
As has been widely recognised across the Chamber, since March, the Government have acted with great determination to protect people’s livelihoods. Indeed, I think it is recognised that our response has been one of the most comprehensive and generous anywhere in the world. The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England agree that the Government’s actions in the face of the pandemic have helped to safeguard millions of jobs and businesses.
The job retention scheme—the furlough scheme, as it has been described—has been central to that response. I will talk a little about that and then come on to some of the very interesting points made by colleagues from across the House. As the House will be aware, the furlough scheme was designed and implemented at extraordinary speed, and launched on 20 April, just a month after its announcement. Its purpose has been to help those who would otherwise have been made unemployed and to support businesses as quickly as we could. I do not think that anyone has questioned its success, as I have mentioned. According to the latest figures available, the CJRS has helped 1.2 million employers across the UK to furlough 9.6 million jobs, at a value of some £35.4 billion.
The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) will not often hear me say this, but how right he was to describe this as one of the Government’s most effective schemes. It is a hotly contested area, and there are many schemes that he could have chosen, but I think I heard him say—I wait to be corrected—that this was one of the most effective. He is absolutely right about that: it was, and it is. Detailed figures show that, up to 30 June, the CJRS had supported nearly 800,000 jobs furloughed in Scotland, more than 400,000 in Wales and almost 250,000 in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was right to say that it would be churlish not to recognise the CJRS as a laudable scheme. It has had an enormous impact on every single constituency represented in this Chamber.
Opposition Members have pointed to other countries that they would like the furlough scheme to emulate. Of course, they are welcome to do that. They might, for example, want us to contribute at the same wage rate as in Spain, but in fact our furlough scheme does more than that. They might want us to support the same range of businesses as the furlough scheme in New Zealand does, but in fact we are supporting a much wider range of businesses. They might want our scheme to run for as long as that originally proposed in Denmark, but in fact our scheme runs for twice as long. In a majority of sectors in France, which has been mentioned on several occasions, businesses have had to make an employer contribution of 40%, which is significantly higher than in the UK. Why should we imitate that scheme? Why should we have a 40% contribution rate? I think that would be wrong.
At its conclusion in October, the furlough scheme will have been open for eight months from start to finish. Of course, it is understandable in that context that Opposition Members should be calling for an extension, but the Government’s view is that it is in nobody’s interests for the scheme to continue forever—I am not suggesting that that has been widely promoted as a policy option by Opposition Members—and, if it does not, it has to be brought to an end at some point. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned that it was important to do that on the basis of analysis. Let me reassure him that no one does more analysis than the Treasury does. We look at these issues every which way. We draw on an extremely wide spread of data sources across a number of different areas of behaviour, in both the consumer sector and the wider productive economy. Our view, which has been expressed separately and independently by Andy Haldane, who has been mentioned in this debate, is that it would be irresponsible to trap people in jobs that can exist only because of Government subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) was absolutely right to point to the importance of energising the possibilities for new work, new opportunities and new scope in the labour market, particularly for women. However, the onus must be on us to provide fresh work opportunities for those who need them across the UK, and the Government have been doing just that through the Chancellor’s plan for jobs.
As the House will know, we are thoroughly committed to the responsible management of the public finances, in part because no one can say how long this pandemic will last for. As has been recognised by none other than the OECD, the work of the last 10 years has given us relatively strong public finances, which we have achieved by bringing borrowing and public debt under control. That is what we are needing to draw on in tackling the challenges posed by covid-19. With Government debt now exceeding the size of UK economy for the first time in more than 50 years, we must continue to balance the needs of the present moment with the need to maintain the country on a sustainable financial footing.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister will have heard a couple of folk refer to analysis that shows that by extending the scheme for eight months, debt as a percentage of GDP will fall rather than rise because of the positive impact that it would have on growth and total GDP.
Jesse Norman
I have not seen the National Institute of Economic and Social Research analysis that the hon. Gentleman talks about, which is somewhat embarrassing, since I am a governor of the national institute—I shall ask it to forward that to me. I am pleased to say that it is independent of its governors and rightly so. I will certainly look at that.
The point I would make is that although the scheme as such is winding down, Government support is very much not. It continues across a very wide range of packages and includes, as colleagues rightly mentioned, the bonus. I think that that is much underestimated by colleagues—it is a very important element. That guarantees a one-off payment of £1,000 to employers for each furloughed employee they bring back to do meaningful work and earn an average of £520 a month between November and January, and who continues to be employed by the same employer as at 31 January 2021.
Jesse Norman
I have very little time—if the hon. Member does not mind, I will proceed. That bonus is an important aspect because it provides a marginal benefit to a very large group of relatively low-paid employees. Of course, we have also launched the kickstart scheme.
Let me pick up a couple of points that have been raised. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that it is very important for Scotland to have powers of its own in this context. I echo again—I am becoming like a broken record—the hon. Member for Ilford North who said that the Scottish Government are good at passing the buck and bad at taking responsibility. The Scottish Government House has tax-raising powers devolved through the Silk commission. Let it use those. At the moment, the vast majority of money spent in Scotland and in Wales is spent by and raised through local government—regional government—but raised through UK Government, and that is crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) rightly pointed out that the Chancellor has included many flexibilities in the design of the furlough scheme, and it is important to recognise that it has evolved over time. It has not been a fixed thing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) rightly pointed out that the unemployment drop had been much less in the UK than elsewhere and that there had been a rapid fall in furloughing. He pointed to the tapering out that that implied and he is right about that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) was right to raise the point about the need for green jobs. The Government absolutely share that view, and that is one of the things that successive policies have focused on. I have no doubt that it will be an important part of the consideration in the net-zero review and all the other measures that are presently in place.
Quickly, on the issue of fraud—if I may for a second before winding up, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is much misunderstood; the planning assumptions that were outlined in the evidence from the CEO of HMRC are just planning assumptions, and we wait to see what the final numbers will be after enforcement. He has said in terms that he does not rule out penalties and potentially criminal procedures to bring that back under control—
Patricia Gibson
I will not detain the House any longer, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that there is another important debate on the horizon. I just thank everyone who has participated, and I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has not listened to the calls and continues to tell us how lucky we are with the support that we already have. That is cold comfort to those who are worried about their homes, their jobs and their future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Like last week, I will not suspend the House; I will just pause while the Dispatch Boxes are sanitised and the main players take their positions, please, as others leave the Chamber. Remember “hands, face and space” and please leave socially distanced.
To let those who are taking part in the next debate know, the wind-ups will begin at 4.30 pm. Those participating in the wind-ups will have half an hour between them; it will be eight minutes, 10 minutes and 10 minutes, and then, if time allows, Caroline Lucas, who will open the debate, will have two minutes at the very end. This debate, like the last, is well over-subscribed, and we are much later going into the debate because of previous activities, so, following Caroline Lucas’s opening speech, there will be a four-minute limit. That is likely to be reduced later by Madam Deputy Speaker.
Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the self-employed and freelance workers during the covid-19 outbreak.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which affects so many of our constituents. The job retention and self-employment income support schemes have provided a lifeline for many, and they have undoubtedly provided a degree of security for those who were eligible. But there’s the rub: far too many people have been ruled ineligible.
Today’s debate takes place just as the six-month period that the self-employment scheme was intended to cover draws to a close. I intend to make the case that the scheme should be continued where it is needed and, crucially, that it should be extended and backdated for all those people who have been unfairly left without support over the last six months through absolutely no fault of their own, and who have endured intense hardship as a result.
Many cannot pay their bills. They are losing their homes, they are drowning in debt and they need our support. Today’s debate is a sorely needed opportunity to set out how the self-employment scheme has fallen short. It has fallen short by failing to recognise the reality of what self-employment looks like in Britain today—by failing to understand that self-employment is significant across the breadth and depth of our economy. The self-employed are beauticians and barristers; charity and construction workers; dentists and decorators; many in marketing, events, arts and hospitality, and many more. This is a chance for us to explain loudly and clearly why self-employed people need justice and why they need support as we go forward.
As it stands, as I am sure all hon. Members know—although, frankly, I am less sure that Treasury Ministers know—the Government scheme penalises a wide range of people. They include those who combine self-employment with pay-as-you-earn work, or PAYE freelancers. They include new start-ups and the recently self-employed. They include women who have taken time out for maternity leave and childcare. They include anyone earning over £50,000. They include those earning less than 50% of their income from self-employment. They include limited company directors who take their income in the form of dividends.
There have been endless requests for the Treasury to meet MPs and those affected by the scheme’s failings to discuss those gaps. Frankly, the exchange between the Chancellor and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) during Treasury oral questions earlier this week underscored how urgently such a meeting is needed. I am not sure whether the Chancellor just does not understand his own scheme or whether he was deliberately being economical with the truth, but when he asserted that the only group of people excluded from the self-employment scheme is those earning more than £50,000, and that their average median salary is apparently £200,000, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. He is completely and utterly wrong. He does not understand his own policy, and we urge him again to meet us so that we can set out the problem.
At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the brilliant campaigns, including ExcludedUK, ForgottenPAYE, ForgottenLtd and many others, and individuals such as Amanda Evans and Ellie Phillips who have helped the self-employed find such a powerful and united voice. I also thank the various hon. Members from right across the House who joined me, campaigners and the money saving expert Martin Lewis at the end of July to symbolically deliver petitions to the Treasury. They were signed by more than 348,000 people and demanded that the gaps in the scheme be urgently closed.
Those campaigns and many individuals have sent copious correspondence to the Chancellor, detailing the various groups of people who are not eligible for income support. His refusal to honestly engage with those suffering as a result of his policies is frankly shameful. The Treasury has met all requests for dialogue with either deafening silence or meaningless stock responses. I am sorry, but that is not good enough.
It is not good enough for my Brighton constituent who was working full time with the BBC as a PAYE freelancer, so he is ineligible for either furlough or self-employment support and, having come relatively recently from Ireland especially to take on the role at the BBC, he is not eligible for universal credit either. He says that how he has been treated during this crisis has financially ruined him. It is not good enough for Deniz Turan, a sole trader who has gone, in her own words, from being a successful businesswoman to being homeless and feeling suicidal every day in the blink of an eye, simply because she was a start-up who took her income in dividend payments. And it is not good enough for Mark, another small limited company director, who says that the strain of getting no income support on his marriage, his household, his mental health, his physical health and his finances is literally unbearable.
The self-employed have been failed by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and it is not just me making that argument. As hon. Members will know, an all-party parliamentary group has recently been formed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for setting up the APPG, which represents those who have not been protected by the various Government packages. It is I think one of the fastest growing APPGs in parliamentary history. It currently has around 260 MPs from all sides of the House, including 79 from the Government Benches, while 15 Conservative MPs added their names to the application for this debate to take place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the forgotten sectors is music teachers who teach our young people. Many of them—including some in my constituency, as well as throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—do not have any income whatever. They are one of the forgotten groups as well.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree. The people we are talking about are in every sector of our economy and our society, and they are hurting.
Back in June, the Treasury Committee published a unanimous report called “Gaps in support” as part of the inquiry into the economic impact of coronavirus. It found that hundreds of thousands of self-employed people are suffering hardship because of features like the disqualification of anyone who started a business in the last year. The Select Committee made some clear practical recommendations for change. I agree with the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), that urgently enacting those recommendations and helping those who have fallen through the gaps is the only way for the Government to, as he puts it, fairly and
“completely fulfil its promise to do whatever it takes”.
Sadly, the Government’s response to the “Gaps in support” report was predictable: they made excuses and cited obstacles, when what we need is action. So let me say just a little more about some of those who are falling through the gaps. I mentioned small limited companies whose directors take all or part of their income in dividends. I want to stress that that is common practice; there is nothing suspicious about doing that—it is what people do when they are starting up small businesses, and they plough that money back into those businesses in the early days.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
How is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs meant to know where the dividend income comes from, because when people fill in their tax return, they do not have to say the source of it? It could be dividend income from massive stock market investments, and why should they get subsidised for that?
Caroline Lucas
A whole range of practical proposals has been set out by the Treasury Committee, ExcludedUK and many others documenting the other paperwork that could be presented, including records from tax returns and so forth, that can make sure that this scheme is not open to fraud. If the political will is there, a way can be found using a range of different documentation to demonstrate that the money that people are applying for is absolutely legitimate. We can look at bank statements, for instance. It is not beyond the wit of people to make sure that people in our constituencies are not literally having to go to food banks, as an hon. Member mentioned the other day, in order to be able to put food on the table.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When I raised this very issue with the Treasury Minister, I highlighted the fact that the records are held in Companies House and all HMRC has to do is marry up the records. The reason he gave was that they did not have enough staff at HMRC. Is that not just a complete disgrace?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is of course absolutely right, and it would be a simple measure to do this if the political will were there.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Would these things not be able to be thrashed out one to one in the meeting that still has not taken place that the hon. Lady mentioned?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady is exactly right. Just a first step will be for the Government to acknowledge that there is a problem. Instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and going, “La, la, la”, they need to accept there is a problem here, and I am sure if we all got around the table we could find a way through this.
The vast majority of those small limited companies do not have commercial premises either, so they do not qualify for business grants. Nor do they see taking on large debts in such an uncertain business landscape as a realistic option. Furlough has been a Catch-22 for company directors: unpredictable cash flow means their salaries are low, so the scheme does not cover living expenses, yet if they furlough they are not allowed to work on saving the businesses that are in question.
The scheme has also routinely excluded carers and parent. As part of its inquiry into the impact of covid-19 on maternity and parental leave, the Petitions Committee heard evidence from the brilliant campaigning group, Pregnant Then Screwed. It was told that, because the self-employed scheme fails to properly accommodate women who incur a loss of earnings when taking time off for maternity leave, the gender pay gap among the self-employed, which is already at 43%, will increase, as will the likelihood of women’s businesses failing due to a lack of financial support.
Anthony Browne
The hon. Member is absolutely right that people furloughed generally are not allowed to work. But there is an exemption that the Government brought in for company directors who are furloughed—they are allowed to carry on with their company director duties, including saving their business.
Caroline Lucas
If they do not have any money, they cannot save their business, can they? That seems an odd intervention to make.
The Petitions Committee urged the Government to amend the scheme to take into account periods of maternity and paternal leave to ensure fairness and equality, yet, once again, Ministers have deliberately looked the other way. That phrase “whatever it takes” apparently does not stretch to ending discrimination against self-employed women. Nor do they care very much about freelancers, especially those on short-term PAYE contracts, as is now common practice because of HMRC requirements. They are caught between a rock and a hard place: denied access to the job retention scheme and the chance to be furloughed, yet often not earning enough from self-employment to qualify for the self-employed scheme.
In some sectors of our economy, freelance working is especially common. In my own Brighton constituency, for example, a number of people work in the arts. Three in four jobs in the arts across the country are freelance. They are the people who make the plays, the musicals and live experiences that are a part of the fabric of British life. We do not always see what they do, but they are invaluable, yet one in three of the skills base in theatre, for example, have missed out on any Government support since March, with disabled people, people of colour and early career workers disproportionately affected. Young people are also over-represented compared with other sectors of the economy. Therefore, rather than recovery, we see a sector that is facing total collapse.
Failure adequately to support the cultural, creative and events industries has put at risk 16,000 jobs across Brighton and Hove and £1.5 billion in turnover. My inbox, like, I am sure, the inboxes of many other hon. Members, is full of emails from constituents forced to abandon long-standing careers in the arts because there is no income support for them as freelancers.
Many working in media and journalism are similarly struggling, as the National Union of Journalists has evidenced, with its members routinely treated as employees for tax purposes, yet not eligible for furlough and not afforded the same protections and rights as staff when it comes to employment law.
Another group of people hard hit is those who choose to combine self-employment with PAYE income. I have a number of constituents in that situation, often as a result of being midway through making the transition to running their own company and being wholly self-employed.
None of this is inevitable. All of it is the result of a conscious choice by the Government to abandon anywhere between 3 million and 6 million self-employed people and freelancers. As the current self-employed scheme winds down, now is the time to change tack and do the right thing by these people. The details of a more inclusive scheme have been set out by the campaign groups and by the Treasury Committee. The ForgottenLtd group published a rescue package. Backed by the Federation of Small Businesses and other business groups, it sent it to the Treasury over a month ago, and it is still waiting for a response.
I appreciate how much other people need and want to speak, so let me quickly, in my last few minutes, outline three things that can be done. First, we can retrospectively expand the self-employed scheme. Bring those people who have been excluded from it into its ambit and make it fair by retrospectively starting it from 1 March to give it parity with the furlough scheme.
Secondly, as well as looking back, we need to look forward, so the Government should immediately extend the duration to the many sectors where the self-employed are a significant part of the workforce and which will not be back to anything like normal for some time to come. Thirdly, the Government should be looking at ways of keeping pace with the changing shape of the economy, balancing public health and economic priorities with the likelihood of more local lockdowns, for example. Part of the answer to that is a basic income scheme. The self-employed and job retention schemes do not work in tandem with the welfare system and therefore do not approach anything like a proper safety net. Many people have not been able to claim universal credit. Some have received no support whatever and the consequences are devastating, so much so that ExcludedUK has been working with the Samaritans on creating a dedicated helpline called Mind the Gap for those experiencing mental health problems. There is a simple and effective way to start to put things right and a universal basic income delivered via a welfare system that lifts everybody up would be a key cornerstone of that.
In conclusion, on Tuesday the Chancellor said he had
“not hesitated to act in creative and effective ways to support jobs and employment,”—[Official Report, 15 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 160]—
and promised he would continue to do so. The self-employed and freelancers rightly want that creativity to apply to them as well. The Treasury has demonstrated time and again that it does not understand self-employment, so at the very least those of us standing up for the excluded are asking this again today: please will the Minister go back to the Treasury team and ask them to meet us so that at the very least they can understand what is at stake here? The stakes could not be higher: people’s businesses are being destroyed and their lives are being destroyed. That is not right and that is why so many Members want to speak in this debate.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
What a powerful start to this debate we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), laying out with passion the case that has, to some extent, not been heard by those on the Treasury Bench throughout this crisis.
I want, in part, to echo a number of the points the hon. Lady made and take hon. Members back to the start of the crisis when all of us as Members of Parliament were met with a series of increasing issues from our constituents. They were worried about not being able to get groceries from their local grocery store. They had loved ones who were overseas. They were worried about their jobs. People could not get loans to keep their businesses supported.
Time and again, those issues were sorted out by the Government to a greater or lesser extent and answers were found. At the end of all that, however, as many hon. Members will know, there was one group that remained excluded from a number of levels of support or where their ability to access that support was not sufficient—the millions of people in this country who are self-employed.
I want to go through some of those issues passionately, if I can, but also with facts. I am sure the Minister will respond with facts, and quite rightly so. She will, I am sure, mention the fact that the Government did find the right arteries, if I can call them that, to get the support to people, particularly those in the job retention scheme and others. That was a tremendous success. The ease with which people were able to access the support when they qualified was also a tremendous success.
The overall record for the Government in terms of economic programmes and international comparisons was also a great success. However, this debate is not about those successes; it is about the omissions from those programmes. A fact it would be helpful for the Minister to provide is to reconcile the difference between the Government’s assertion that 95% of the self-employed are covered and the other assertion that there are 3 million excluded. That would be a helpful reconciliation to have.
It is important for those on the Treasury Bench to understand the issues for the self-employed that have made that speed to get a response so difficult: the fact that their income is lumpy and unpredictable and the fact that they have a variety of employment structures, often taken up over the years at the request of those on the Treasury Bench, make it difficult for schemes to come into place.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend allow me to assert the fact that some people who are self-employed have been able to get back to work, but many involved in large industries such as culture, entertainment, film and music have not been able to because those events are not taking place?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is precisely right. That is one of the three issues the Government really need to focus on as they consider their response to this debate. If we take wedding planners, theatre, live events or conferences, we see that the Government are asking those sectors to remain closed but what is their level of support? Literally hundreds of my constituents in those sectors still cannot earn an income anything like they would have earned in normal times.
I urge the Government also to consider the newly self-employed. We had issues with people who changed jobs from February to March, when the scheme came in. The Government did find some change there, but that was where someone’s change was measured in a matter for weeks. The self-employed can be measured for a matter of months and they still cannot get included because their tax returns are measured on an annual, not monthly, basis. What will the Government do, for example, for a pet care business in Biggleswade in my constituency that suffered precisely because of that?
The criteria for the self-employed were more complex than for those in any other of the schemes that businesses or individuals could apply for. It got to a point, which I will return to in my final comments, where something in what the Government were trying to do for the self-employed was beyond the issue of providing support. I had a musician from Upper Caldecote and a performer from Sandy who were not able to access the scheme because they felt they fell on one side of the criteria and not on the other. If it was good enough for the Government to think of complex criteria for the individual to claim, why could the Government not sort out the problems for people by cross-referencing their dividends so that they could say that they were genuinely self-employed?
It is important that the Government get to grips with the issue of those who feel that they have been excluded, because the self-employed provide so much for our economy. They are the innovators. They are the people who will undercut competitor prices to deliver a better product. They want to over-deliver, because for self-employed people, it is not just about business; it is about themselves. It is how they behave and how they interact with others that is so important. The UK gets so much from the self-employed. We get a quarter of a trillion pounds of contribution to the British economy. We get higher growth. We get a world-beating labour market in terms of its efficiency. We become a front-foot nation. That is why the Government need to act.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it forward. It is a shame that we have to cram six months of misery into an hour and a half, but we will do our best.
Many of those excluded from Government support over the past six months work in the creative industries—in TV, theatre and the arts, but also in events and exhibitions. Sometimes I feel I have got all 3 million of the excluded in my constituency, which is very arts and ents heavy. With 70 years of the BBC, we have grown a massive media industry, including commercial broadcasters. We have three highly regarded theatres in the Lyric, the Bush and the Riverside. We have major national music venues, such as the Hammersmith Eventim Apollo, the Shepherd’s Bush Empire and the Olympia exhibition centre. Such venues have had a double-whammy, because in many cases they and their industries do not get any help and are not being allowed to open—it is likely, the way things are going, that that will be further delayed—and many of them rely on exactly the excluded groups we are talking about today.
Of course this is not just about those groups. I have been involved recently with everything from the wedding industry to the Bar. Anything that brings barristers and wedding planners together must be quite extraordinary. We go to them at different times of our lives when we may be happy or sad, but there is an interesting point there, which is what all these organisations have in common. Often they are entrepreneurial. Often they are risk-taking. Often people who are at the beginning of their career are investing and have limited incomes. Often, also, they are following professional advice from accountants and the Treasury that has got them into the situation they are in. They are not wilfully ending up in this situation; they are there because they have entered into it in good faith.
I have to declare that I was a self-employed barrister for a number of years, and the figures from the Bar Council say that not only have three quarters of chambers lost 50% of their work, but the majority say they will not be able to last more than six to 12 months. Some people may not cry many tears over that, but the fact is that these people—I hope that many of them are successful and go on to great careers—cannot make do on the income that they have, and they are being done down in that way.
I have so many letters from constituents, and often they are from couples who both work in those industries. I think that most of us know the common problems. They could be people who are just above the £50,000 earnings threshold. They could be people who recently became self-employed having set up their businesses. They could be people who have moved between jobs. They could be people whose incomes come from a range of different sources. Whatever it is, they fall through the gaps in the Government’s scheme, and they cannot get any help at all in many cases.
The Chancellor, of all people, pooh-poohs them and says, “These are wealthy people,” and talks about dividends, but I have a letter from a constituent who gets £10,000 basic and then relies on dividends to top up their income. I could go on for a very long time—I am sure all Members could—in relation to these matters, but I will end on this: whereas we have got our act together with the Excluded UK all-party parliamentary group and through ExcludedUK, the Government are all over the place. We often have to deal with four different Departments to get an answer. We are taking two or three months to get Departments to answer. Please will the Treasury Minister sort that out, make the change retrospective and help people who are genuinely in need?
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Businesses up and down our country face pressures they never expected, challenges they never predicted and hardships they never sought. Rightly, the Government stepped up and came to their aid in their hour of need—grants, the furlough scheme, bounce back loans, and much more. The Government have provided to businesses in all four nations one of the most generous and supportive packages of economic measures anywhere in the world.
That said, my constituency, a coastal community, with an economy at its core dependent on tourism, the arts, music, creative sectors and hospitality, has been disproportionately hit by coronavirus. Hastings and Rye is a beautiful constituency that has seen a revival in recent years of its music scene, artistic events, creative kinship and gastronomic offerings. We only have to compare Hastings old town 15 years ago with today to see the massive winds of change that have blown through our streets.
Those who have helped to revive the parts of this beautiful constituency, however, are now themselves in need of support, for they are the freelancers who are the backbone of many of these sectors and have thus far gone without much Government support. From musicians to artists, writers to journalists, actors and performers, they put the soul and beat into the streets of Hastings, and it is only right that we support them now in their hour of need, because once coronavirus is over and we are out in the streets celebrating once more, we will want our musicians, actors and artists there to entertain, inspire and lift us up after this dark episode in human history.
This is not just about the performer; it is about the fabric of connections that bind the whole industry together. These performers work in partnership with each other and with theatres, commercial organisations, charitable trusts, schools and local groups, so by supporting our freelance or self-employed performers, we help the whole industry to stay afloat and we build community resilience.
This is not just about individual finances; it is about experience and skills being lost and young people not being encouraged to choose the creative industries as a career. Being self-employed in any industry provides the freedom and flexibility to go where the work is, but during the pandemic, work dried up overnight for many people, and freelancers continue to struggle as protective measures against coronavirus continue to affect many industries.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend, I represent a coastal community, and many of the people she has mentioned I recognise. May I add my voice to the calls to the Government? They have done a tremendous job during the pandemic to support businesses, but those whom she describes have been badly hit, particularly those who have been prevented from carrying out their work because of Government regulation. Surely, they deserve additional support.
Sally-Ann Hart
I agree with my hon. Friend. Numerous freelancers did not have a financial buffer and, unlike employees, were not entitled to be furloughed. We must not forget the small business owners who pay themselves mostly in dividends and earn under the threshold. It is often a more flexible way of payment that can keep money in their businesses to keep them going—many have used dividend payments to legally mitigate their tax payments—but there has to be some encouragement for entrepreneurs taking risks and setting up businesses and employing people.
Our SMEs provide the backbone of our great nation. The Government rightly took the bold and necessary decisions to provide an exceptional package of financial support to businesses up and down our land, but now the Government must go further and consider the support given to our freelancers and self-employed as we turbo-charge our economy out of the pandemic. For we as a community will look for our creative freelancers once all this is over to lift our spirits once more and inspire us into happier, healthy and more prosperous days.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank those Members who have been championing the self-employed for the past six months. In Northern Ireland, about 15% of people are self-employed, which is higher than average, and of course the scheme has been welcome, vital and suitable for many people, including those back already to something approaching a normal working life. For me, however, as for other Members, the hole in the scheme became very clear from my inbox—from the newly self-employed without last year’s tax return, to the limited director who pays herself with dividends as and when she can; from the PAYE freelancer, the part-time freelance, to those just over the threshold or who took time off for sickness or maternity, having tried to build a career that could balance their home and work life, and now feel abandoned.
In short, the scheme did not reflect the modern economy and modern work practices, nor the ways in which so many had been living. These are individuals who had taken a leap of faith with their skills or had been manoeuvred into their working arrangements by the casualisation of the economy in their sector. We are talking about the tradesman, the contractor, the small and growing business—the red blood cell members of our economy, driven, willing and creative: attributes we will need so much as we rebuild after the pandemic. Some have already gone under because they could not wait for business as normal to return, and very many more are edging closer to a similar fate. In my constituency, since the start of the pandemic, 2,300 more people are claiming universal credit. It would take every minute of the time we have today to talk about how unfit for purpose and unfair is that system that so many more people will be thrown into in coming months.
I want to use my limited time to focus on the creative sector in Northern Ireland, which is 5% of our economy and growing fast. It is not only fundamental to our tourism product but fundamental, of course, to who we are. At home, now and in darker times, the arts was the shared space—the organic place—where people of all backgrounds and different views worked and enjoyed themselves together in a way that a Government in Northern Ireland could not create in their wildest dreams. It was, as Liam Neeson said, our north star and our compass. He said that at the Lyric theatre, which is the heart of my constituency and the heart of the arts and culture.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is very passionate in what she is saying, and I totally agree with her. One of the drama clubs and theatres that has done exceptionally well is Bangor drama club, which has closed after 90 years. Many of my constituents participated in that for the camaraderie, the coming together, the friendships and the wonderful productions. Does she agree that the Minister here and the Minister in Northern Ireland must ensure that historic venues such as this can be opened once more as the community hubs that they are and can be again?
Claire Hanna
Of course. The hon. Member will know that community arts also feed into our professional workforce, attracting and creating so many jobs. The economic value is clear: the arts give us £7 for every £1 spent. We have world-leading expertise—genuinely world-leading expertise—in all areas of the arts in Northern Ireland. But because it is a sector that requires collaboration, it is almost necessarily casualised, and very few people are working in static economies.
I think we are all dying to get back to the theatre, back to a book launch, back to a gallery or back to a gig, but if we do not take action, the sector will not be there. In fact, if we do not take action the things that, in many cases, got us through the past six months—the books we read and the TV we enjoyed—will not be produced in the same volume again. That requires taking action: the type of action that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) outlined so comprehensively, and indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, action within Northern Ireland. I am calling on the Executive to release and to thoroughly target the £33 million that was our proportion of the arts intervention in July within Northern Ireland. If we are not spending as much as the Conservatives on the arts, we have a bit of a problem. Indeed, we need a wider economic strategy that addresses all those who have been excluded and left out within the economy.
The whole economy is struggling, of course, but the arts, in particular, has so little chance of recovery. It simply cannot open in the same way again. If universal credit is all that people are going to be able to access—if they are lucky, after a fight—how are they going to stay afloat? How are they even going to get back on their feet, let alone manage to retrain or retool for a future economy? This is going to have a long-term impact that is not just economic and not just about our cultural value, but will affect equality in the workplace, skills, growth and innovation. It is not too late to act. The scheme can be extended in scope and duration. It can be applied retrospectively. The support that other advanced economies have provided can be given. No one is saying that this can or should last forever, but nor does anyone believe that this crisis is over. Leaving people with nothing and at the financial cliff edge turns off the light at the end of the tunnel.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to support freelancers and self-employed people in my constituency who have fallen through the cracks of what I recognise has otherwise been an extremely generous financial package provided by the Treasury for so many people. As I have gone about my constituency over the past few months, so many people have thanked me—people in business and employees—for the support that they have received from the Chancellor. However, I want to use this opportunity to highlight three cases in my constituency.
The first is that of Andy Warren, a co-director of the long-established Congleton company Printing Group (UK) Ltd. He refers to the fact that dividend-receiving company owner-managers are effectively discriminated against from receiving support. He says:
“HMRC is happy to accept our word on our income tax returns (that are self-assessed), on our corporation tax returns (that are self-assessed), on the furlough claims we make for our staff, and on our entitlement to a bounce-back loan. We even have to self-declare that we have to repay child benefit. None of these are verified by a third-party, we are taken at our word. So why is it not acceptable regarding our dividends?”
Secondly, I would like to turn to the concerns expressed by another constituent, Dave Boutcher, who is a director of Thorn Distribution Ltd, a warehousing and distribution company with 15 staff. Neither he nor his co-director have received anything by way of benefit from any national scheme or council support package for themselves or their company. They have not even received any furlough money, due to a technicality on the payroll submission date, but being the honourable employers that they are, they have paid out some £100,000 of their own money to their staff, effectively furloughing their staff out of their own funds. I wrote to the Treasury about this on 13 May and received a generic reply letter on 8 September. I am asking the Treasury to look again at their case, which their accountant says is one of the worst they have seen in a system with no flexibility and no appeal.
Finally, I would like to talk about my constituent Lauren Scott, a self-employed musician. We have heard a lot about musicians in the debate, and I would like to tell the House about Lauren’s circumstances. Lauren is a highly professional harpist, and her husband Andy is a composer and teacher. Over the past 10 years of my being a Member of Parliament, no individuals have done more in my constituency to promote the arts, and particularly the engagement of young people in music, than Andy and Lauren Scott. I have heard Lauren perform many times as a harpist, and I have heard one of Andy’s pieces premiered at the Southbank Centre.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady for what she has said. It is so important to foster talent, and if we do not provide the support now, that future talent could be lost forever.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Member is absolutely right—it is about not just these people’s talent, but the next generation that they are nurturing.
Lauren says:
“I am a self-employed freelance musician of 25+ years. I have only ever been a professional musician. During that time I have always paid my taxes and never considered myself to be a burden on the state. I am highly regarded within my field and very often my work is booked into my diary up to 1-2 years in advance. All my concert work has been cancelled…Performing was 80% of my work/income and private teaching was 20%. The only work I now have is my teaching.
At the start of lock-down I applied for 18 jobs with local supermarkets for roles ranging from shelf stacking to driving delivery vans. I did not succeed with any of those applications. It appears that 25 years of playing guest principal harp with all the professional orchestras playing at the likes of the BBC Proms, recording live broadcasts and performing at all the major concerts venues across the country was not the right kind of experience Aldi and Tesco were after.
I will not be able to ‘get back to work’ when the current SEISS ends in October. By now my diary should be full of bookings for 2021, but promoters are not booking and I have nothing booked in for next year…
Please could you ask for there to be consideration to extend the SEISS for self-employed musicians and the Arts Sector. Having high quality live events happening in major venues… is precisely what is going to attract people to visit those city centres.”
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Gary Thomson is a taxi driver in Edinburgh—one of many in the city. He has been driving for years, and until last year he worked for a private company and paid his taxes and national insurance every month. A year ago, Gary realised his lifetime ambition of setting up and started working for himself. He invested his savings and went into the unknown. It was working up until the virus struck, when demand for taxis pretty much disappeared overnight.
When Gary tried to apply for support, he was told he had not been self-employed for long enough and was excluded, even though he had been paying his taxes continuously over the qualifying period. That is unfair.
Sarah Lachhab is a tour guide in Edinburgh—one of thousands of workers in that industry in the hospitality sector. She has been running her own business for more than three years, but up until the beginning of 2019 she did not make enough from it to pay the rent, so she had some other bar jobs in the hospitality sector. When Sarah applied for support, she was told that because most of her earnings had not come from self-employment over the past three years, she too would be excluded from the self-employment income support scheme. Of course, because by then she was doing okay as a self-employed worker, she had given up the other payroll jobs. That meant she was excluded from the coronavirus job retention scheme as well. She fell between the two stools, and that is unfair.
Georgina Allison is an architect in Edinburgh. She has been self-employed for a while, but three years ago she took time off to look after a newborn child. Because her earnings were very little in that year, it brought the average of the three years for which the calculation was made much lower than it would have been otherwise. I have asked HMRC to disregard maternity periods and childcare in making the calculation, but it has refused to do so. That is not only unfair; it is blatant discrimination against female self-employed workers in this country.
All of those things need to be fixed, and it is possible to fix them. For six long months, dozens of MPs—or perhaps hundreds of MPs—on behalf of tens of thousands of constituents, have been arguing with HMRC and the Treasury to try to get something done for the people they represent. I think we have all been stunned at the degree of intransigence we have met.
We are constantly invited to applaud the schemes that have been set up. There is talk about how many people they have helped and how much money has been spent on them. I acknowledge that—I will sign anything you want to say how great it is—but that is not an excuse or a rationale for refusing to fix problems that are manifestly there in the system. In fact, the very scale of the schemes and the amount that has been spent on them make it bewildering that for a very small proportion more, the Treasury would not plug all the gaps that are clearly there. When we come to remember these schemes, I fear that they will be remembered not for their largesse and generosity, but for the parsimony and unfairness that has led to many millions of people being treated unfairly in this country.
It is not good enough for the Treasury to refuse to answer questions, to refuse to take meetings, to sit there and pretend that it does not understand what is happening. There is no reason for that, so I appeal to the Minister and her colleagues: please open your minds, open your ears and meet with us so that we can discuss the things that need to happen to put these schemes right.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
For the sake of transparency, I refer hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At the point when I was elected to this House, I was still self-employed and, with a bit of cross-over to complete a couple of projects, I remained so before I completely ceased trading much earlier this year.
As someone who was self-employed for 15 years, I come to this debate understanding what self-employed people go through and the risks they take, often putting their own homes on the line in order to build a business. Most importantly, I speak in this debate because there are some 12,000 people registered as self-employed in my constituency of Buckingham.
The self-employed and those who take the risk to start their own business will always have my absolute respect and admiration. They are the wealth creators, not just for themselves but for the supply chains and services they use to go about their trade or profession. They are the vital disrupters who propel competition and innovate. Those who take this worthy entrepreneurial path do so, as I have mentioned, at serious personal risk: their own homes are on the line. It is because of that very risk that when crisis or disaster strikes, such as we have seen with coronavirus, they are left the most vulnerable if their trade cannot continue through no fault of their own.
I want to put on record my absolute thanks and gratitude to the Government for making available a support package that has supported 4,300 self-employed people in my constituency, receiving grants worth a total of £14.5 million. It must be acknowledged that this Government’s covid support scheme for the self-employed has been among the most generous in the world. However, like so many other hon. and right hon. Members, I have heard far too many stories of those who have fallen through the gaps.
Each and every freelancer, contractor, self-employed businessman or woman who has come to my surgeries or written to me has a different story to tell, and that is important because it speaks to the diversity and vibrancy of entrepreneurialism and how it works and thrives. Not everybody fits into the sort of box that I fear HMRC officials would deeply love them to neatly sit in. Our challenge is how we make up for those losses if we are to come together as a country and bounce back.
I have argued in the past and written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my other hon. and right hon. Friends in the Treasury calling for a support package. However, if such a retrospective package cannot be delivered, I urge my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary and the whole Treasury team, as they look to the upcoming Budget, to look at ways in which we can stimulate the self-employed sector and ensure that we are recognising them in the tax system, including the risks they take and the costs they incur. For example, the value of every invoice is not necessarily profit—there is cost in there that needs to be taken into account—and dividends are a legal and legitimate way in which people have paid themselves, on the advice of their accountants, for many decades.
Let us find a way to support all our self-employed, freelancers and owner directors of limited companies, and give them the stimulus to grow our economy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made an excellent speech, and I hope the Minister listens to him in a way that I have not managed to make the Treasury listen to me so far.
I have had constituents from all walks of life reach out to me over the last few months—carpenters, architects, taxi drivers, musicians, accountants—and all with one thing in common, which is that they have been very badly let down by this Government. People who have been self-employed for less than a year, limited company directors, freelancers, the self-employed earning over £50,000 have all had their income slashed and are expected to get by on universal credit.
We cannot stress enough that this was totally unexpected. If someone is self-employed or a freelancer, they expect the ups and downs that accompany that state as they take risks, but nobody expected covid to happen. This was a one-off event, and in such circumstances people look to the Government to step in and provide a safety net.
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), I have heard from self-employed new mothers who have been financially penalised for raising a child because maternity leave is included in the self-employment calculations as a period when they have not made a profit. I have heard from a director of a limited company whose income supports her, her partner and their four-year-old daughter, but her partner was on maternity leave as lockdown struck with a baby due in four weeks, and they were not getting any support at all.
Another constituent sent me this, which is worth reading in full because it sums up the impact that people are experiencing:
“I went self-employed 9 months ago and haven’t so far submitted a tax return. My work is drying up and I just don’t know how long I will be able to keep my head above water, I’m so worried that I’ve been having panic attacks. My brother is in an even worse situation. He’s a director of a small limited company and pays himself via dividends, with his average earnings a fraction over the £50k cliff-edge threshold. He’s a heating engineer who can only do breakdowns. His partner can’t work as she’s a hairdresser and they have a young family. My brother's income has been slashed to virtually nothing and they have next to no income to pay their bills. They are in such a lot of trouble. If I knew if I could keep working I could help him out. My parents are trying to help but they can’t if this goes on for very long.”
That was in early April.
Five months down the line and despite repeated pleas to the Treasury, there is still no support for people like them. The Chancellor bragged that his March Budget was pro small business, but small limited companies have received neither business nor personal support. Some 20 directors of small limited companies reached out to me and I have tried to lobby on their behalf but, as everyone who has spoken today has said, the Government simply would not listen.
Since lockdown, I have sent 16 letters to the Chancellor about flaws and gaps in the Government’s personal financial support schemes. If we take into account the business in my constituency on whose behalf I emailed to see if they could get loans or business grants, I sent 35 emails to the Treasury. The vast majority of those received a cut-and-paste response from a civil servant in the Treasury’s correspondence unit—not even a Minister—that was essentially a printout of the Government’s frequently asked questions.
As colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned, people in the creative sector have possibly been dealt the worst hand of all. Many of them, especially musicians, still cannot legally go back to work. I hope the Minister listens to us all today on both sides of the House, does the sensible thing and extends the furlough scheme, as we heard in the previous debate, for those who cannot return to work. However, the Chancellor also needs to listen to what MPs are saying today, finally acknowledge the plight of the excluded and do the right thing by them too.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate on an important topic. It is a topic that has featured frequently in my inbox and consistently at surgeries. I am sad that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), because he has taken so many of the issues that I wanted to talk about in my speech. He, though, was very eloquent and said them in a far better way than I could do.
Early on in my career, I was engaged under a freelance contract, and before coming to this place I worked in a sector that used freelancers and self-employed talent, so I have a deep understanding of the issues that affect those who are self-employed. If someone works for themselves, their raison d’être to get up and go in the morning is to go out and find business—to work. When they cannot work because the Government have told them to stay at home and has locked them down, it is counter to everything they do. I represent Warrington South, an area in the north-west of England that has a particularly high level of self-employed people. More than 20% of the constituency work for themselves. It is an issue that has come to the forefront there.
As other hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the Government for the support they have given to the 2.7 million people in this country who are self-employed, costing £7.7 billion. Self-employed people have been able to claim grants worth 80% of their average monthly trading profits, up to £2,500. It is without doubt one of the most generous schemes in the world.
I remember clearly, in late March, when we first went into lockdown, that the furlough scheme had just been announced and I took a call in my office from a gentleman called Stephen, a self-employed carpet fitter. He was incredibly concerned about his self-employed status and what it would mean for him. I remember being able to phone him back a few days later and give him the news that the Chancellor was launching a scheme to help people like him, and I remember the words he used: “Thank you, Chancellor.”
Sadly, I took a call on the same day from a couple who worked in the entertainment sector, Jo and John Martin. Jo books talent for cruise ships and John is a performer. They, too, were incredibly worried and the call I made back to them, thinking it would be positive, ended up not getting quite the same response, because the way they had constructed their self-employed operation meant that they were not eligible for anything. Today, they still do not understand. They have paid every single tax that was due, on time, all the time, but have had nothing. That is the bit that confuses and frustrates many people.
I want us to look forward; I want to see a focus in the forthcoming Budget in November on ensuring that we do everything we possibly can to encourage businesses to start up and operate. We are providing significant cash incentives to businesses to take on people and paying them £1,000 to train them up. I hope we can look carefully at what we are doing for people who want to go out on their own and set up their own businesses. I want us to make sure we have mentor schemes in place. When someone launches their own business, stepping out on their own, without the ability to wrap a monthly salary around themselves, it is a difficult time. As a Government, we need to ensure that we are ready to support those people and give them every level of assistance to get the business up and running. We need people who work on freelance and self-employed contracts to be firing on all cylinders, ready to go, and I look forward to economic support targeted in a creative way in the autumn statement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can see that several people are hoping to speak. We are running out of time, so I am afraid that I am going to take the time limit down to three minutes. I am sorry that that gives a little shock to the hon. Member for Stirling, but I know he can deal with it very well.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I have had more shocking things to deal with this week than that.
I warmly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate and praise to the rafters the ExcludedUK and #ForgottenLtd campaigns, which have done so much to bring this issue to the forefront. I also praise colleagues for the constructive, bipartisan way in which we have held this debate, and in that spirit I reach out to those on the Treasury Bench and to Treasury Ministers. I do feel for them, as this has been an unprecedented crisis, needing unprecedented solutions, on an unprecedented timescale. So we are not here just to criticise; we do have solutions to the problems.
The Scottish Parliament cannot borrow at the moment. I would like it to, but at the moment the UK Government does this on our behalf, so it is our job to make sure that the money is well spent and that the support is extended and better targeted. Business is still in crisis. We need to acknowledge the seasonality of many businesses, particularly in Stirling and in Scotland, and we need to look after the self-employed better. But what hurts—I would like some response on this—is that the Chancellor said that no one will be left behind. I promise and assure those on the Treasury Bench and colleagues that in Stirling, Scotland and the UK lots of people have been. They feel aggrieved and hurt, and that needs to be acknowledged. I have supported the schemes as far as they have gone, but we are talking about people who are not Wetherspoons, British Airways or Costa Coffee. We are talking about pram shops, electricians, taxi drivers, mortgage brokers music shops, gym equipment makers—the real entrepreneurs, who are the lifeblood of the Scottish economy.
We have a number of concrete requests to make—I have tried to boil this down. First, the Government should acknowledge that there are gaps in support and that some people have been left out and left behind. I ask the Government to meet us—to meet colleagues from across the House, and meet ExcludedUK and #ForgottenLtd. I ask them to continue the self-employed scheme beyond October and retrospectively expand it to cover seasonal workers, freelancers and the recently self-employed, and to look into the specific gender pay aspects of the support schemes, which have let down so many women in particular.
We are not out of the woods yet—far from it.. I have just heard of one case of covid being confirmed at the University of Stirling, and we must ensure that we keep people safe throughout the times to come. If the Treasury will not act on the reasonable suggestions made by Members from across the House today, we will. Let me give a final statistic: 71% of Scots want the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to have full financial powers to protect our businesses and to deal with the crisis. If the UK Government prove that they will not act, they build the case for the transfer of powers to Scotland, because we have a fully functioning, law-abiding Parliament and Government who will.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate on a very important issue. If the Conservative party is anything, it is the party of entrepreneurs, strivers and people who get out of bed in the morning to create wealth, which is one of the reasons I am a Conservative. I have also been freelance—self-employed—the past couple of years, and I know how precarious it is and how one may not know how much money is coming from one month to the other. When the coronavirus crisis struck, my heart went cold when I heard accounts from some of my constituents about the sudden 100% loss of income overnight.
As we have heard, a huge amount of support has been provided, through a range of different schemes. That has totalled some £280 billion, with quite a lot of it focused on self-employed people. The Treasury Committee, on which I serve, produced a report on those who are excluded—it was quoted earlier—for which we talked to a range of different groups. Many people have been in very difficult circumstances, and I do not wish to minimise that, but I will say—because we have heard so many Members speak from one side of the argument—that a lot of them did get some form of support. They might not have got the self-employment income support, but often they got other forms of support, such as VAT deferral or other tax deferral, or they did not have to pay business rates, or they received grants. There is also the backstop of universal credit. I totally accept that universal credit is not much money and that it is very difficult to live on, but everyone should have access to it.
The one big difference between the self-employed and those on the furlough scheme, which we debated earlier, is that the self-employed could continue to work. I know from conversations that I have had with constituents that many of them who are self-employed continued to work, particularly those in the online and digital sector, although I absolutely accept that if they do not have any work, clearly they cannot continue to work.
The other thing about all of this is that the more we think about the detail, the more complicated it gets. We heard the discussion about dividends, for example. Actually, there are so many different circumstances in which people get dividends from different forms of work, with company directors getting dividends from investment funds and so on. It means that we cannot have an automated system. The whole point about the SEIS scheme and the furlough scheme was that it could be done rapidly and at scale because it used data that already existed and was accessible by Government. We could not do that in this case without the equivalent of some sort of self-assessment scheme, with really detailed investigations into each individual’s circumstances, which would have taken six months or so to set up. The Government’s objective, quite rightly, was to get support to as many people as possible as quickly as possible, and they did that well.
Another aspect of paying oneself by dividends, which obviously people do for cash-flow reasons, it that they do not pay national insurance contributions, so they are paying less. It is very complicated, and the more we look into it, the more difficult it is. I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in urging the Government to ensure that we have a Budget for freelancers and entrepreneurs, and to make sure that they are looked after.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it.
I wish quickly to pick up on a comment that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) has just made. He suggested that, “As the Government have been saying all along, it is just too difficult.” The fact is that the Government have not even met the Excluded UK all-party parliamentary group or Forgotten Ltd, even though we could help them resolve this. It is difficult, but we can help. The hon. Gentleman said that we must not forget that the self-employed can work. Let us not forget that awful week when the whole of the creative sector, restaurants, theatres and cinemas were ordered to close, sports were cancelled, schools were shut and millions were told to work from home if they could, but millions could not.
Although we are very grateful for the Chancellor’s furlough scheme, there were some quite frustrating days while we were waiting to hear whether the self-employed would get any support. It might have been a mistake on my part, but I put out a single tweet on 13 March asking for people who were self-employed or who worked freelance to contact me with their stories. My inbox almost exploded, with nearly 4,000 contributions, because people’s lives had been thrown into total chaos and anxiety. I heard about work that had been booked in for more than a year being wiped out. I heard from couples, often in the same sector, who lost a whole year’s-worth of work, with childcare costs and mortgages to pay. It had a seismic impact on people’s lives and futures. There is still no mention of support for freelancers. Finally we got the self-employed income support scheme, which I am enormously grateful for. But we cannot get away from the fact that there are still 3 million people excluded from that support.
One of the most recent emails I received was from a lady who is a freelance musician. Because of the crisis, she is now going to a food bank, and she is very grateful for that food bank. Unfortunately, she is not going to be the only one. The Trussell Trust has announced a spike in food bank usage and said that worse is to come, with a possible 61% increase in need compared with last winter, and with half the food parcels given out to first-time users. We are facing a tsunami of deprivation this winter.
I would like to add my support for Pregnant Then Screwed, and my good friend Olga Fitzroy, for all the campaigning they have been doing for maternity and paternity rights. In my remaining 23 seconds, I cannot fail to mention the creative industries, in which I was a self-employed freelancer for more than three decades. We are used to feast and famine, but this is unacceptable, particularly when the Government do not seem to be listening. Please may I urge the Government to extend the furlough scheme for those sectors that are the last to return and to meet with us and ExcludedUK?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Back in March, at the beginning of lockdown, when announcing some financial support, the Chancellor said that he understood people’s concerns about losing their jobs and paying their rent or mortgage and their food bills, and he added:
“You will not face this alone”.
Since that time it has been clear that a significant section of our community has been abandoned—left to face their financial difficulties without any help from the Government and very much alone. The people I am talking about are the excluded 3 million, made up of freelancers, the self-employed, new starters and many others who, through the misfortune of the way that they were employed, were excluded by the Government from any financial assistance at all.
I have had numerous cases of constituents that illustrate the injustice of this denial of support by the Government. Take the example of my constituent Debbie Hassan. Debbie is a single mother of three and a self-employed picture editor for newspapers and other publications who works shifts. Her income went from £150 a day to zero as a result of lockdown. As she was ineligible for furlough or the self-employed income support scheme, the only support she could access was universal credit, at £94 a week. Or take the case of Anna, who, after being made redundant some years ago, set up her own media consultancy company from her loft. In an email to me, Anna said: “I have been five months without any income or meaningful support. As a sole director, PAYE, of my own company, there was no help. I was forced to furlough on less than half my mortgage and council tax, let alone all other bills, such as utilities and food. I am single, so there was no back-up for me.”
Let us take the case of another constituent, S, who said: “I am self-employed. I work mainly as a British Sign Language deaf-blind communicator guide. I usually find I am turning away work. When lockdown happened, most of my clients started to shield, so my income stopped immediately. I met the 50:50 rule for the self-employed income support scheme for my work, but I get some of my dividends from my husband’s limited company, which made me ineligible.” Her husband’s limited company was in set construction and its work also stopped immediately when lockdown was announced.
I have many other examples, including freelancer musicians who have received nothing while their contemporaries in orchestras and thus on contracts were furloughed on 80% of their pay. The Chancellor said he will do “whatever it takes” to get us through the coronavirus pandemic. He has totally ignored the 3 million excluded, who have fallen through the gaps and been left to sink or swim. All that is being asked for is that the disparity in support for the excluded is remedied and that they be given the financial support that they deserve and need to survive. If the Chancellor truly wants a quick economic recovery after this crisis is over, he needs to start listening and do whatever it takes to support the excluded, and to do it now.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Following the powerful debate on the coronavirus job retention scheme that has just taken place, this debate is on an equally unfair injustice. I am glad to speak in today’s debate on behalf of the hundreds of freelancers and self- employed workers in my constituency who have contacted me because they fall outside the various covid support schemes. They include high and low earners, working across many sectors, including those that have been devastated, such as the arts and culture, and aviation. They include those working in TV and media. They are minicab drivers and supply teachers. They work in events, IT and other transport sectors. They include those who have set up a company and employ others, contractors, those who work part time and those in the gig economy.
These people generate economic growth. Except for the very low earners, they pay taxes. They train others. They enrich our cultural life. Yet despite the explosion of self-employed and freelance workers in the UK to around 3 million, too many Government policies, tax arrangements and HMRC processes still see the world through the lens of PAYE and permanent workers. The covid recovery scheme is no different from all the others. I think that is why too many freelancers and self-employed taxpayers have fallen through the gap, and fallen for the cultural block of the Treasury and HMRC.
Despite many of us writing letters and submitting petitions, the Treasury is not listening. A number of solutions have been proposed by those affected and we have heard examples of them today. For those in limited companies—those in the TV and creative sector in my constituency have been particularly hard hit—it has been suggested that the Government could use dividend certificates as a form of proof. For those on maternity leave, SEISS calculations could calculate the time spent on maternity and shared parental leave and exclude that. For those who are self-employed, HMRC could use evidence such as the UTR—unique taxpayer reference—to calculate a rough income. For those who earn less than 50% of their income from self-employed work, a taper beyond £50,000 would be appropriate.
Like others, I have not had anything more than a generic response from the Government on this. I acknowledge that many self-employed people have been helped, and the Minister will no doubt reel off the list of how many millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been spent, and on how many thousands of people, but what the House and our constituents want to hear is what those in other nations across the world are providing: honesty, acknowledgement that they are listening and, where appropriate, adaptation. Finally, I want to address the issue of universal credit. With rents over £2,000 in my constituency, too many people are excluded from any benefits.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate this afternoon and on drawing attention not only to the pivotal role of self-employed people across the UK but to the need for further Government support for them in this time of crisis. This is particularly the case in Wales, where self-employed rates in rural areas such as Ceredigion are far above the UK and Welsh averages. In the previous debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) rightly noted the need for sector-specific extensions to the furlough scheme, and I would argue that a similar targeted approach is urgently required to support self-employed and freelance workers, especially those working in the creative, tourism and hospitality sectors, and also in the events sector, which in Ceredigion has been particularly hit this summer, with the cancellation of dozens of local agricultural shows, carnivals, weddings and eisteddfodau.
In the brief amount of time I have available to me this afternoon, I want to echo others in urging the Government to look again at helping the individuals and businesses who have been unable to access any support thus far. I welcome the UK Government’s self-employed income support scheme, but, as has already been noted, almost 3 million self-employed workers were excluded from it, many of whom live in Ceredigion and work in a range of sectors and different circumstances. Composers and architects, newly employed workers and small business owners have all been excluded from support after falling foul of the scheme’s criteria, perhaps by submitting PAYE details a few weeks after the cut-off date or because they have earned too much in previous years.
Another hurdle that needs to be addressed, which has punished far too many, is the requirement to prove that at least 50% of an individual’s income comes from self-employment. That criterion especially disadvantages freelancers in the arts and creative sector, who draw their income from a range of sources. Just as devastating was the exclusion from both the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme of newly self-employed workers and those limited company directors who are paid through PAYE on an annual basis.
I am talking here about individuals and businesses who have seen their income completely disappear in recent months and who have little prospect of any work for months to come, and I therefore urge the Government to take action to address these issues, to extend the support to prevent a jobs crisis over the winter, and to look again at the rules so as to help those who have thus far been excluded through no fault of their own to get some support.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Time is of the essence, so I am going to cut to the chase and give a couple of examples from constituents who have been in touch with me because they are ineligible for support because of the timing of when they became self-employed. One email I received was from Steve, a self-employed wedding videographer from Cambuslang, and it sums up the position many newly unemployed constituents have faced with the scheme. He told me:
“I took great comfort in Rishi Sunak’s words that ‘no one will face this alone’. However, because I only became self-employed in December, and despite the huge effect the crisis has had on my business—effectively putting me back to square one—I was unable to receive any SEIS because I hadn’t been self-employed for long enough.”
Lesley runs a photography business and lives in Rutherglen. She found herself ineligible for support under the scheme because, as a small limited company director, she took her income in the form of dividends. She told me:
“As my husband and I are both full-time directors, we are missing out on over £27,000 of support that we would’ve received had we been considered self-employed and treated equally. That money would’ve been retained in our company to pay for overheads and staff, rather than taken by us personally. It’s criminal that honest taxpayers are paying into a system which is excluding them in a time of crisis. It has gone beyond the issue of dividends, these companies need the same support as the self-employed.”
Lesley’s words not only demonstrate the devastating impact that ineligibility for SEIS will have on businesses; they highlight the mistake of bringing the scheme to an end prematurely. Self-employed people working in industries that are still in recovery from the pandemic, such as theatre, live events and productions, want the scheme to be extended for as long as is needed to protect their livelihoods.
This Government must start listening and act quickly to extend both the availability of grants under SEIS and the eligibility criteria for receiving those grants. Like other Members in the Chamber, I am a member of the APPG focused on the gaps in support. I call on the Minister to listen and to arrange a meeting so that we can discuss ways out of this and give options to the people who have been left behind.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), as other Members have, on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling it.
The hon. Member was absolutely spot on: the self-employment income support scheme must be extended in time, it must be extended in scope, and it must be made retrospective. We have heard throughout the debate how upwards of 3 million people across the UK, including several hundred thousand people in Scotland, have found themselves excluded from the support that the Government have offered, and I add my own commendation to ForgottenUK, ExcludedUK and the Excluded UK APPG for the work they have done in highlighting those instances.
The excluded range far and wide in their scope. They include the self-employed seasonal workers who fall outside the scheme. They include freelancers, and directors of small businesses remunerated by dividends. They include, in many cases, the newly self-employed—and of course let us not forget those who, because of the hard cut-off date of 19 March, missed out entirely on any support through the job retention scheme.
The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made a point about the exclusion of the newly self-employed. It is possible to support those in that situation. The Scottish Government did precisely that, using their own resources to fill the gaps. That additional response included £100 million to help the newly self-employed and £10 million to help support those in the events sector who were not able to access any other kinds of support.
Time prevents me from going much further on that, but the Scottish Government certainly flexed their budgets as best they could to spend beyond the allocations that came through the Treasury and Barnett. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said eloquently, the Scottish Government lack the financial powers to extend support much beyond that, but it is not good enough to say, as the Minister did in response to the previous debate, “You’ve got tax powers; off you go and use them,” when the Chancellor prefers, quite rightly, to expand borrowing rather than increase income taxes to achieve that outcome.
The real harm here is the damage of exclusion—not just the immediate hardship, devastating as that is for those affected, but the effect it will have in hampering the economic recovery. I represent a constituency in the north-east of Scotland that has one of the highest start-up rates for businesses in the UK, let alone Scotland. It is no exaggeration to say that those small businesses—those enterprises; those risk takers—are absolutely the backbone of our economy. They include the start-ups, the spin-outs, the home enterprises, the lifestyle businesses, those who are working from home supporting the oil and gas and engineering sectors, the creative businesses, those who organise events, those involved in tourism, the musicians—in short, the creators, the innovators, the entrepreneurs: folk who roll up their sleeves, get their faces dirty and in many cases, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) said, put their homes on the line to do what they do. Those are the people who will drive the recovery. Hammering their finances and their ability to do all that they do best will not just impoverish them; in the long run, it will impoverish us all.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said that providing support for the self-employed was complicated and that the Treasury had responded with alacrity. That much is true, but let me repeat the plea for the universal basic income. Surely it would have been better just to give everyone something than to try to cut red tape sideways or do as the Chancellor is often wont to do and obsess about the wrong details, leaving so many people excluded from support.
Many hon. Members have given eloquent personal testaments from their constituents to describe the gaps. We have heard about how pernicious the gender gaps in particular are. I acknowledge that the job retention scheme and the self-employed support scheme were fine as far as they went. I have welcomed and supported them; we have been bipartisan about that. The trouble is, although they are fine as far as they go, we know that they do not go nearly far enough. My plea to those on the Treasury Bench is: acknowledge the gaps and the hurt they have caused the people who have been excluded; please agree to meet those who have been affected; and commit to doing, to quote the Chancellor, “whatever it takes” to help put that right now and for the future.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating a stellar cast of cross-party MPs, led by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), on securing this important, well-attended and over-subscribed debate, which the Backbench Business Committee granted in its wisdom.
As we have heard so powerfully, the Chancellor plans to cut off support for every self-employed worker in the country from October, no matter whether they are back at work or back under local lockdown. It is almost as if he thinks that the economic crisis that we are living through is somehow unrelated to the Government’s catastrophic failure on test, track and trace.
As we have heard throughout the debate, the people we are discussing—the self-employed and freelancers across the country—are the backbone of Britain’s economy. They are entrepreneurs, innovators, creators, risk takers and entertainers. They are not looking for a permanent handout, just the support they need to weather the crisis, get back on their feet and help build Britain’s recovery. Let us be honest: they have been an afterthought since the crisis began. Few of us will forget the despair they felt when the Chancellor promised to do “whatever it takes”, yet they found themselves out in the cold when the job retention scheme was first announced.
Without an outcry from the Opposition, we would never have had a self-employment income support scheme and more than 2.7 million people would have missed out on any support at all. Sadly, we do not have to imagine what that would have meant for those people because, if the anguish people felt when they were left out of the job retention scheme package was not bad enough, it was dwarfed by the total despair that 3 million people felt when the Chancellor announced the self-employment income support scheme and excluded them.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Many of those excluded from the schemes are in the creative industries, which contribute £111.7 billion to the UK economy. That affects not only them as individuals, but our future recovery.
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is second to none in championing that issue on behalf of the people of Luton.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Although many groups are affected, I want to highlight those people on repeated short-term contracts. They do not fit into any category, but they have tax records. Surely, with a bit of imagination, people with a long-standing tax record could be helped.
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are practical ways through this. We do not pretend that it is not difficult, but the problems are not insurmountable if the Government would only show flexibility and willingness to listen. Millions of people’s hopes were crushed and their lives thrown into chaos and anxiety when they saw the ship was sailing and had left them behind.
I do not need to list the exclusions, but can we drop this idea once and for all that these are all super-wealthy people living it up on savings or shares? One of my constituents affected is a face painter and balloon artist. She has a simple job, which is to bring joy to children, and it is a job she loves doing, but it is a job she could not do when, like every other business, she went into lockdown and her business closed. Now, as she is trying to get her business back up and running, she finds the rule of six has once again crushed the party business. She is not super rich, she cannot do her job through no fault of her own and she has not had a penny of support since April.
We have heard other powerful examples, including from my hon. Friends the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). There are so many examples we could give, but we have so little time and those people have even less time. “You will not face this alone”, the Chancellor said. Unfortunately, that was true in only one respect: they found each other. Through ExcludedUK, ForgottenLtd and other campaign groups, they have found a support network and managed to win a hearing in the huge cross-party support they have built in this House. So why is the Chancellor not listening? Why is he being so stubborn and inflexible? Why, even now, do Ministers refuse the basic request, which is just to meet and talk with people who are willing to come forward with ideas and practical solutions? The consequences of the Government’s failure to act are clear. Before the crisis began, around 15% of the workforce were self-employed. That figure has fallen sharply during this crisis. We heard powerful personal testimony on this from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter)—people who know what it means to take the plunge, take the risk and start a business.
We have heard powerful contributions on the arts and creative industries, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), who knows how to build an audience. We have heard other brilliant speeches, too, from my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), from Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and from right across the Back Benches, from SNP and Plaid Cymru Members.
People might think that theatre is frivolous and all about singing and dancing and having a good time, but there is an important economic issue here. There is a reason central London is empty: the theatres are closed. The live music sector contributed £4.5 billion to the UK economy in 2019. We also see in the figures that some of the sharpest falls have been in construction, professional, scientific and technical services, and administration and support services. The Resolution Foundation has highlighted the sharp fall in these people’s earnings.
Labour has repeatedly called on the Government to listen to the concerns of the excluded. The shadow Chancellor has written to the Chancellor four times in recent months to highlight problems and suggest solutions, and we are always willing to meet, if only the Government were not so stubborn and unwilling to listen. The Federation of Small Businesses—experts in this area—has repeatedly called for a rescue plan for those left out of Government support. It is right to argue that those whose businesses are often suffering through no fault of their own should not be left out of support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) underlined, the Government do not understand Britain’s self-employed. As a result, they have not valued them and because of that they have not provided them with the support they desperately need.
Before I was elected to this House, I spent just a year as a freelancer. It was one of the most terrifying professional experiences of my life—not knowing if I would get the next job, or if the invoice would be paid on time; worrying about things such as my cash flow, bills, my incomes, my outgoings. It is a stressful experience. I can speak for the self-employed and the excluded in my constituency—we have heard so many others speak for their constituents too—but none of us can truly understand what these people have been through this year, seeing other people receive support and themselves left behind.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that many freelancers, particularly in the creative industries, where it is really precarious and people live contract to contract, make ends meet with casual work, but that has totally dried up in the hospitality sector, in ushering and in box office work, for example? So they have absolutely nothing, and they are desperate and running out of savings.
Wes Streeting
That is absolutely true. One of the things I find most worrying about the trends we have seen is that—as if the inequality that has gripped this country was not bad enough entering the crisis—there have been two very different experiences of the pandemic. If people are in a job with stable employment and have had money coming in every month, they may well be one of the households who has contributed to a record rise in savings. They may well feel that their outgoings have gone down and that they can start planning for home improvements or a decent family holiday. However, if people have lost their job, or were self-employed or freelance and their business activity went completely down to zero, this has been an absolutely terrible experience. I do not think that any of us, unless we have been in that position, can really understand what those people are going through.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister, whose task in responding to the debate I do not envy—with the notable and honourable exception of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), I think she has found herself pretty alone in this debate—that the cross-party calls for the Government to listen, even to meet, are overwhelming. The privilege of being able to govern comes with the responsibility of taking action, of seeing people through difficult times. We know that the Government have a difficult job. We would not have wished this pandemic on anyone, but so many of us on both sides of the House simply do not understand the Chancellor’s intransigence, stubbornness and unwillingness to listen on this issue. So please, I beg the Minister, on behalf of millions of people across this country who have felt unheard or excluded: it is time to act.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and acknowledge the many and varied contributions of right hon. and hon. Members across the House. The Government understand the crucial role that the self-employed, including members of partnerships and freelancers, play in this country’s economy. They are part of the lifeblood of British enterprise and they, too, have suffered during the months of the pandemic. We have not forgotten them, but we recognise that we have not been able to help everyone in the country exactly as they would have liked. However, what the Government have done has been unprecedented.
Since the launch of the self-employment income support scheme earlier this year, designed and implemented at speed, claims totalling £7.6 billion have been paid out to support more than 2.5 million people. That represented a first grant and we did not stop there. As of 17 August, individuals have been able to claim for a second and final self-employment scheme grant. This further grant is open to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria and whose business was adversely affected by covid-19 on or after 14 July 2020. Importantly, applicants do not need to have claimed the first grant and they can receive the support while continuing to work.
The eligibility criteria have been raised by many Members. The criteria for the scheme are fair and rightly aimed at delivering support to those who need it most. Self-employed individuals, including members of partnerships, are eligible if they submitted their tax return for the tax year 2018-19, continue to trade and have been adversely affected by covid-19. To qualify, their self-employed trading profits must be no more than £50,000 and at least equal to their non-trading income. Many Members have said that this is not enough, so I would like to pick up on those points.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said that there is a discrepancy between the 3 million who are not served and the 95% that the Treasury is talking about. We are talking about people for whom at least half their income comes from being self-employed. Ninety-five per cent. of those people are covered—that is about 3.4 million people who were mainly self-employed in 2018-19 who should be eligible for this scheme. The statistics show that the scheme has helped individuals across the UK in all sorts of different sectors. The extension of the scheme also means that eligible individuals whose businesses are adversely affected, from or after 14 July, can claim a second and final grant until 19 October. That is a taxable grant worth 70% of their average monthly trading profits paid out in a single instalment. Like the first grant, the second grant will be based on three months’ worth of trading profits and capped at a maximum of £6,570. We are listening. Many different requests are coming through and we are trying to get a package that works, but that is balanced towards businesses, the consumers and the taxpayer.
Very many Members, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and others, have raised the case for those working in the arts. We do recognise that. The Government know the challenge facing creative organisations and practitioners as a result of the pandemic and the disruptive impact of the necessary measures on cultural and creative activity. We have announced a £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund to protect the cultural sectors through the covid-19 pandemic, and that money will also go to help those self-employed individuals who may not have been able to access schemes. None the less, as the economy opens, we believe that the situation will improve.
The self-employed, including freelancers, benefit not only from Government support specifically designed for their needs, but from schemes that we have created that will cover them, but that are not specifically targeted at them. They benefit, like so many others, from schemes such as bounce back loans, tax deferrals, rental support, increased levels of universal credit, mortgage holidays and other business support grants. The Government have spent £160 billion in support on interventions—as much as we have spent on the NHS and schools. That is alongside many other Government measures that will help support people and kickstart the economic recovery. The plan for jobs, for instance, will make up to £30 billion available to assist in creating, supporting and protecting jobs. I am pleased that hon. Members from across the House have acknowledged that the UK has one of the most generous self-employed support schemes in the world. However, today’s debate is about the concerns and not about the successes.
Several Members, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), are particularly interested in the eligibility of individuals who receive income from dividends issued by their own limited company. Although the Government understand that some business owners choose to pay themselves in the form of dividends, it has not been possible to include them in this scheme. The Government have worked closely with stakeholders and carefully considered the case for providing a new system for those who pay themselves through dividends, but it would be so much more complex than other existing income support schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) was very perceptive in raising the operational difficulties that it would entail. That is because, under current reporting mechanisms, it is just not possible for HMRC to distinguish between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and dividends derived from other sources. Unlike existing support schemes that use information that HMRC already holds, such a scheme would require individuals to make a claim and submit information that HMRC may not efficiently or consistently verify. Such verification would be essential to ensure that payments were made to eligible companies for eligible activity.
Many Members have talked about comparing notes with Companies House. I do not think that people really understand just how difficult that would be. It is not simply a matter of looking at Companies House. It would require so many manual compliance checks: those people who need money would have to send information to HMRC, which would then need to be cross-checked. That would be extremely arduous and due regard would have to be given to the opportunity cost for that resource—where compliance activity would have to be reduced elsewhere. In other words, the many checks that Members are asking for would make it even harder for us to help those people who are most at need. It is important that the House—
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that I do not have enough time. I am sorry I am not taking interventions.
It is important that the House understands that we have not taken a deliberate stance against support for company owner managers who pay themselves through dividends. This is about understanding and identifying what is operationally feasible, managing technical complexities and fraud risks and ensuring that other forms of Government support are delivered in a timely way.
Owing to the Government’s reasonable concern to protect against fraud and error, it has also not been possible to include in the scheme those who are newly self-employed, which I know many Members have raised. That is because the most reliable and up-to-date record of self-employed income is from the 2018-19 tax records. Individuals can submit tax returns for 2019-20, but again there would be significant risks to the public if the Government relied on those returns for the scheme. That would create an opportunity for fraudulent activity through the returns—where no trading activity has taken place, where trading profits have been inflated to increase the size of the grant, and where trading profits have been reduced to below the £50,000 threshold in order to become eligible. The Government cannot expose the taxpayer to those risks, and the extension of the scheme would not mean that those concerns have been reduced.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), among others, raised the issue of parental leave. The treatment of self-employed parents is part of the scheme. As the Minister for Equalities, it is a subject close to my heart, made even closer by the fact that I recently returned from maternity leave. That is why I want to address the issue directly. Claiming maternity allowance or taking parental leave does not mean that trading has ceased and will not therefore affect a person’s eligibility for the self-employment scheme, as long as the individual intends to return to trading after parental leave.
In addition, we have listened to feedback from stakeholders and made changes to the scheme to benefit self-employed parents. Those parents who were previously ineligible for the scheme because they had not submitted a tax return for 2018-19, or because their trading profits in 2018-19 were less than other trading income because they were taking time off work to care for their newborn or adopted child, can now claim through the self-employment income support scheme. Those parents who have become eligible can now make a claim for the first grant, the second grant or both depending on when their business may have been adversely affected by covid-19. Again, we have made those changes. Many Members of Parliament have written to us with requests about that.
We are aware of concerns raised on how the grant is calculated, particularly for those who have taken parental leave. As the Chancellor indicated, delivering a scheme for the self-employed is a very difficult operational challenge, particularly in the time available. We are trying to get the money to people as quickly as possible. There is no way for HMRC to know from income tax self-assessment returns why an individual’s profits may have dropped in earlier years. However, to help those with volatile income in 2018-19, eligibility can be determined by profits in 2018-19 or by an average between 2016-17 and 2018-19. This scheme has been designed to deliver support as quickly as possible to millions of self-employed individuals by using information that HMRC already has. It is an enormous delivery challenge and we need to ensure that the changes do not risk delivery of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and others expressed concerns about the impact a second wave might have on the future income of their constituents and talked about extensions. The scheme will remain open for applications for the second and final grant until 19 October 2020. Unfortunately, it is the case that some businesses will be affected by covid-19 far longer than others, and the Government will seek to support those businesses appropriately. As I mentioned earlier, many other schemes can provide support to specific businesses.
Let me end by saying that we are living in unprecedented times. The Government needed to deliver support at incredible speed, prioritising those schemes that could help as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Once the scheme launched, we have remained flexible. We have worked with stakeholders to consider carefully the case for making changes. We listened and, where possible, acted to bring individuals into eligibility.
The Chancellor has acknowledged that the Government have not been able to support everyone in the exact way that they would want, and we have been clear from the beginning that delivering the scheme for the self-employed is very difficult in the time available. They are a very diverse and wide mix of people, with a diverse mix of turnover and profits and monthly and annual variations even in normal times. In many cases, they have substantial alternative forms of income, too. Despite the challenges, the scheme has delivered what it set out to do successfully, providing at speed much-needed income support.
I will endeavour to make sure that ExcludedUK and ForgottenPAYE, which so many Members praised, receive a ministerial response to their letters, and I am happy to write to those Members who have other areas that they feel have not been addressed today. I thank so many Members for contributing to this debate, and I hope colleagues will support the Government as we now turn our thoughts, energies and resources to looking forward and planning for the recovery.
Caroline Lucas
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate and many others who I know wanted to do so, but could not because there was not time. All of us—even the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne)—want to see some changes to the scheme. There is no shame in saying that errors have been made and in trying to rectify them. That is all we are asking the Minister to do, yet I notice that she is still refusing to meet us. That is simply not acceptable.
The Minister says that the Government understand the crucial role that the self-employed play in our economy. No, they do not, otherwise she would not be suggesting that the self-employed just take more loans or they just have universal credit. She said that the Government have not forgotten them. The impression that has been left with people all around the country is that the Government have forgotten them. She says that the Government have not helped them as they would have liked. The Government have not helped this particular group of people at all.
I beg the Minister again. It is not enough to say that she will get a response—a much-delayed response—in writing to these excluded groups. They want a meeting. Why is that so much to ask? What happened to all the rhetoric about levelling up and the warm words about the Government putting their arms around everybody? Why are these people being excluded? Why are our innovators, our entrepreneurs and our risk takers being punished? This is not a party political issue. I am happy to commend the Government for the support they have put in place for the people who have been able to access it, but I want the Minister to acknowledge that some people have not been able to access it and to act now. I ask her again to meet with us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the self-employed and freelance workers during the covid-19 outbreak.
Axial Spondyloarthritis
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this Adjournment debate. I have been a Member of this House for nine months. One of the great privileges of being a Member of Parliament is the opportunity to sit in this Chamber. The more astute observers might have noticed that I occasionally sit slightly awkwardly on these Benches. I admit that, sometimes, I slouch. One of my waggish Twitter correspondents recently juxtaposed a photograph of me and a photograph of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reclining on the Treasury Bench, with the caption,
“great to see Gedling MP getting comfy in parliament and following in the footsteps of his fellow parliamentarian”.
I admire the Leader of the House very much—there is much to admire about him—but on this, alas, I do not seek to emulate him. Rather, my awkward posture arises from the condition I have: ankylosing spondylitis.
Ankylosing spondylitis is one of three sub-types of a type of inflammatory arthritis called axial spondyloarthritis. Axial spondyloarthritis is a chronic inflammation of the spine and joints. It is a painful and progressive long-term condition for which there is no cure. It is unlike conditions such as osteoarthritis, which is often associated with older people and the wear and tear that comes with ageing.
Axial spondyloarthritis, often abbreviated to axial SpA or AS, tends to present in the late teens or early 20s, with the average onset being just 24. In my own case, I first presented with symptoms at 16. As well as the stiffness and pain that one might expect from an arthritic condition, axial SpA is also associated with a range of complications and comorbidities, including uveitis and psoriasis. But it is perhaps the less visible complications of AS that can be the most debilitating. Many suffer from severe fatigue, as well as flare-ups and stiffness.
The condition presents itself in a period when most people are at a crucial stage of their lives, looking to build careers, start families and forge social relationships. I well remember my early 20s, when I was starting out in my first job after university, before I was prescribed the treatments that I am on now. When I got home after doing an eight-hour day in the office—something that most people would take in their stride—I crashed out on the bed, completely exhausted from a normal day at work.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. My husband also suffers from ankylosing spondylitis. Like the hon. Member, he started getting symptoms when he was about 20, and it took him about 10 years to get diagnosed. He was exhausted and struggling to work, and there were days when I had to help him put his socks on because he could not bend over. Does the hon. Member agree that the shocking delays in getting a diagnosis have a massive impact on quality of life, as do the difficulties that people have in accessing the right treatment? We need to improve awareness, particularly of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on the treatments available.
Tom Randall
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What I and her husband have experienced is sadly not a rare phenomenon.
The name axial spondyloarthritis will be unknown to many, if not most, people, but it is not uncommon. It affects about one in 200 of the adult population in the UK, or just under a quarter of a million people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. I spoke to him this morning to seek his permission to intervene. He is aware of the massive eight-and-a-half-year delay in diagnosing this awful illness. I read an article in my newspaper back home in May about a young mum in Northern Ireland and her battle. We must all be determined to secure extra funding so that early diagnosis can happen, for adequate research into this life-changing debilitating disease, and for more support groups. In Northern Ireland, we have only two—one in Belfast and one in Londonderry—for a population of 1.8 million spread across the whole Province.
Tom Randall
In last night’s Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said that she felt like a proper MP after the hon. Gentleman intervened on her in an Adjournment debate, and I echo those sentiments. He is completely right about the delay, which I will come on to in a moment, and about the role that support groups can play in showing that people are not alone in having the condition and in providing moral and practical support. I hope that now awareness has been raised, there will be more than two groups in Northern Ireland in due course.
As I was saying, there are a quarter of a million people with AS, which makes it more prevalent than multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s combined. Hon. Members may say, “Well, so what?” AS is incurable and it can be managed through medication, physiotherapy or exercise, but what makes it worthy of particular concern and debate is, as outlined earlier, the delay to diagnosis.
The symptoms of AS can be difficult to diagnose. I was passed between neurologists, geneticists and other specialists as various conditions were ruled out, before a rheumatologist finally diagnosed AS when I was about 20. I was very lucky that I had to wait only a couple of years before getting my diagnosis, but on average, there is a delay of eight and a half years between the onset of AS symptoms and diagnosis in the UK.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend’s bravery in refusing to allow the condition to prevent him from gaining a place in this House and in attempting to draw more attention to the condition. How does the UK compare internationally in terms of the delay that various hon. Members have discussed between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis?
Tom Randall
I think in comparable countries such as Germany, France and Italy it is four, five or six years. Certainly, I think the delay to diagnosis in the UK is one of the longest in Europe, and that is something that needs to be remedied. Obviously, during that delay of eight and a half years, the condition can deteriorate considerably. One does not need to be an expert to understand the clinical, economic and human burden of delayed diagnosis.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this timely debate. I have the honour to have the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society based in my constituency, which is why I have some knowledge of the matter and am involved in the all-party parliamentary group on axial spondyloarthritis. I am sure that he will join me in praising its work and the extraordinary expertise that it brings. The danger is that if people do not have that association or contact, as many medical practitioners do not, it is difficult to diagnose, and therefore, heartbreakingly, young people suffer in pain and do not get a diagnosis when they should. Will he praise the NASS’s work and agree that the NHS needs to communicate about it much more widely?
Tom Randall
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work. He was an active member of the APPG long before I was in this place. On the issues that he identifies, on which I will go into more detail in a moment, he is absolutely right.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Before coming to this House, I was a physiotherapist. I ran an AS group for swimming and exercise and really know the benefits of that. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy was in touch with me just this week to say that, because of covid, it is experiencing a real shortage of physios for the future and that 2,339 more physios are needed. Does he agree that we need to look back at the NHS work plan to ensure we have the right practitioners in place to support people like him?
Tom Randall
Physiotherapy can play a key role in managing the symptoms of AS, and we should all support the work that physiotherapists do with patients.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on this important issue, and I pay tribute to his bravery in overcoming his condition and ensuring it did not prevent him coming to this House.
I have a family member, a friend and a constituent who suffer from AS, and I know well the problems with delayed diagnosis. My constituent Frances Reid started having symptoms 10 years ago. She went from doctor to doctor to doctor but did not get diagnosed. She was diagnosed only one year ago, and she now has pains across her entire body and needs joint replacements. She is in so much pain that she wakes up eight to 10 times a night. In contrast, a friend from Canada was diagnosed really early. With treatment and exercise, he leads a full life. What lessons can we learn from countries that have quicker diagnosis and what would my hon. Friend like to see here?
Tom Randall
My hon. Friend neatly explains the consequences of delayed diagnosis. A recent systematic review of the available literature found that, overall, patients with a delayed diagnosis of AS had worse clinical outcomes, including higher disease activity, worse physical function and more structural damage compared with patients who had an earlier diagnosis. Those with a delayed diagnosis also had higher healthcare costs and a greater likelihood of work disability, as well as a worse quality of life, including a greater likelihood of depression. Those are the consequences of not giving a prompt diagnosis.
We spoke earlier about the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, or NASS, which has identified four factors that contribute to delay: a lack of awareness among the public that AS might be the cause of their chronic pain; GPs failing to recognise the features of AS; referral to non-rheumatologists who might not promptly recognise AS; and failure by rheumatology and radiology teams to optimally request or interpret investigations. AS cannot be cured, but reducing the eight-and-a-half-year average delay in diagnosis will lead to better outcomes for those living with the condition.
The all-party group for axial spondyloarthritis, of which I am a vice-chair, suggests three steps that would help to reduce the delay in diagnosis. The first is the adoption of a local inflammatory back pain pathway to support swift referral from primary care directly to rheumatology. Low levels of referral to rheumatology from primary care represent one of the key barriers to achieving an early diagnosis of AS, and a national audit by the APPG found that 79% of clinical commissioning groups do not have a specified inflammatory back pain pathway in place, despite NICE guidelines recommending that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes reference to the NICE guidelines and the quality standard on spondyloarthritis not being implemented by 79% of clinical commissioning groups. Does he agree that that simply relates to primary carers referring directly to rheumatology departments, which is not a cost issue but one of professional education?
Tom Randall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that neatly leads me on to the APPG’s second proposal. I appreciate that the NHS is rather busy at the moment with public health messaging of one kind or another, but awareness of AS remains low and support for an awareness campaign would help to significantly raise the visibility of the condition not only among the public, but for example among GPs.
Thirdly, the APPG suggests encouraging the routine adoption of minimum service specifications across the NHS to help to reassure patients, particularly in the context of covid-19 and the difficulties many patients face in accessing key services during the recent lockdown. I would welcome any opportunity to meet Ministers separately to discuss those proposals in detail, if that were possible.
I will leave the last word to Zoë Clark, who addressed the APPG’s last physical meeting in January. She told attendees how, after getting AS symptoms aged 20, incorrect diagnoses and the impact of her condition left her socially isolated and unable to live independently, at a time when she was trying to complete a demanding four-year master’s degree in osteopathy. She said that living with undiagnosed AS was a frightening time and she ended up having to largely sacrifice her social life, due to the difficulties of balancing her degree with the pain and fatigue she regularly experienced.
No one should have to wait eight and a half years to find out what is wrong with them. I hope that we can begin to put that right.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on securing this debate and on bringing the House’s attention to the need for earlier diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis. May I say how important it is that he has brought his personal experience to the debate? The House should appreciate the courage he has shown to speak up about his own condition—something that cannot be easy, but that is an example. I feel strongly that all of us bring our own experiences to our work. That is one of the reasons it is important to have a diverse House of Commons. He has brought his own extremely painful experience to bear. I am confident that simply by doing so, he will make a difference for many others who suffer from this painful condition or who may do so in the future.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted how critical it is for those with axial spondyloarthritis to get the right diagnosis and get it quickly, and to have their symptoms taken seriously by all healthcare professionals. It is clearly incredibly important to ensure that people can access the right sort of care at the right time, as it can prevent the potentially devastating impact of the condition on quality of life. I very much appreciate from his account and from others I have read how the condition affects people and their loved ones. We must do all we can to reduce the impact on people’s physical and mental health, and I want to do so.
As my hon. Friend said, axial spondyloarthritis, which may also be referred to as axial SpA or AS, is a form of inflammatory arthritis that most commonly affects the spine. It is a painful long-term condition that currently has no cure. As well as affecting the joints in the spine, it can affect the chest, the pelvis and other joints, ligaments and tendons. Unfortunately, AS is often misdiagnosed as mechanical lower back pain or diagnosed late, leading to delays in access to effective treatments. It is estimated that approximately 220,000 people, or one in 200 of the adult population in the UK, have the condition.
As my hon. Friend said, the average age of onset is relatively young at 24, with patients having to wait on average eight and a half years before diagnosis at an average age of 32. That is clearly far too long to be waiting for a diagnosis, because left untreated the condition can lead to irreversible spinal fusion, causing severe disability. That makes a rapid referral to specialist care for those with any signs or symptoms crucial to treatment and to preventing those kinds of outcomes.
I recognise that AS can have a devastating effect on the quality of life of people who sadly go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for far too long. This must get better. It is clear to me that early diagnosis and treatment are the key to preventing the development of other serious conditions further down the line and to improving the quality of life of those who suffer from this condition.
We recognise that one major reason for the delays in diagnosing axial SpA is a lack of awareness of the condition among healthcare professionals and the general public. That can take many forms: a lack of awareness of different types of arthritis; a lack of knowledge about the differences between inflammatory and mechanical back pain; or misunderstanding that AS affects similar numbers of men and women. Educational interventions to improve the level of awareness should lead to improvements in earlier diagnosis, and a range of materials are being produced to this effect. For example, an online training module on AS for GPs has been produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners.
In June this year, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published its managing spondyloarthritis in adults pathway, which has been well received by patient groups and charities. This set out recommendations for healthcare professionals in diagnosing and managing axial SpA in adults. It describes how to improve the quality of care being provided or commissioned in this area, both through guidance and via an associated quality standard. I completely agree that we would expect providers and commissioners to be following the guidance and recommendations in this area so that we can improve the overall rate of earlier diagnosis. It is not only important that we have this guidance but that it will be within the pathway that the APPG and my hon. Friend have argued should be put into place in practice.
Munira Wilson
While I welcome the guidance and the pathway, what does the Minister suggest can be done to tackle the clinical conservatism that we quite often find among specialists even once the diagnosis is made? In my husband’s case, the rheumatologists said to him, “You are far too young for us to move you on to the more advanced treatments”, so he was living with huge amounts of pain on just very mild painkillers and steroids. It was only because we happen to live in London that we got him re-referred to a world-leading specialist in the field who then put him on anti-TNFs. He is now able to be the primary carer of our two very young, active children, which he could not do otherwise. Not everybody has that luxury, especially if they live in a rural area.
Helen Whately
The hon. Member makes a really important point, again drawing from her own personal and family experience, about the importance of awareness of what is the best treatment for this condition. If she would like me to do so, I am happy to take away her specific point and look into how we can address the need for improvement in the treatment, as well as her general point about needing a better pathway. I am also happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, as he requested, to talk further about how we can make more progress on the right treatment for this condition, and awareness of it.
Coming back to the overall points about what we can do to improve the treatment, the NHS long-term plan set out our plans to improve healthcare for people with long-term conditions, including axial SpA. That includes making sure that everybody should have direct access to a musculoskeletal first-contact practitioner, expanding the number of physiotherapists working in primary care networks, and improving diagnosis by enabling people to access these services without first needing a GP referral—in fact, going directly to speak to somebody with particular expertise in the area of musculoskeletal conditions. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) intervened to make a point about the demands on physiotherapists. I have asked to be kept updated on progress on delivering the expansion of the number of physiotherapists in primary care networks and, more broadly, on the implementation of the NHS long-term plan. We do indeed need to make sure that we have sufficient physiotherapists to be able to deliver on that. I anticipate that that should have a positive impact on the problem of delayed diagnosis for a range of conditions, and particularly for this specific condition.
While better education and awareness of AS should improve the situation, there is clearly more that we can and must do to understand the condition. The National Institute for Health Research is funding a wide range of studies on musculoskeletal conditions, including AS specifically. That research covers both earlier diagnosis and treatment options for the condition, so that we continue to build our understanding of good practice and improve both the treatment and the outcomes for those who have the condition.
In conclusion, I want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about the importance of awareness and the call for an awareness campaign by the APPG, and I should of course commend the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society for its work in this area. My hon. Friend mentioned that there is clearly a huge amount of public health messaging going out at the moment, but I hope the time will come when we can gain more airtime for this particular condition. However, the fact that we are having this conversation in the Chamber is in itself a step towards raising awareness of the condition, and so, too, is all the work that is going on; that is important as well, because along with having the policy and the pathway, we must make sure it is put into practice.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on bringing this subject to the attention of the House and on the work he is doing and the effect that this will have. I truly want to support him and to do our best for all who suffer from this condition and may suffer from it in future, to ensure that we achieve much earlier diagnosis and treatment and better outcomes for those with the condition.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I commend the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on his courage in bringing such a personal and difficult matter before the House. Many people will not appreciate that that is a difficult thing to do, and I am sure that he will have made a difference to many by what he has done today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am pleased that those in the Chamber are in agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members about the social distancing rules; the seats are marked out clearly. Also, because of the covid regulations, it would be particularly helpful to our colleagues in Hansard if people could email any speaking notes that they have to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I am pleased that we have your direction for this hopefully short debate.
The draft order was laid before the House on 14 July. In the current situation, it is a very simple statutory instrument. Currently, for electricity storage facilities over 50 MW in England and over 350 MW in Wales, planning consent must be sought from the Secretary of State under the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. For facilities below those thresholds, consent is derived from the relevant local planning authority. The SI simply removes the threshold and devolves all consents to the relevant local planning authority. We are doing this because there is strong evidence that the 50 MW threshold in England is distorting the sizing of projects and the nature of investment decisions. Here in England, there is clearly a clustering of storage projects sized just below the 50 MW threshold simply to avoid referral to the NSIP regime.
In 2019, we consulted on removing electricity storage, with the exemption of pumped hydro, from the NSIP regime in England and Wales. We received some 28 responses from the industry, and all bar two, I think, were broadly supportive of the change. For battery and more innovative forms of storage, the planning impacts are low compared with pumped hydro and other forms of generation. The extra time and cost of the NSIP regime is not thought to be proportionate and is also limiting the size of new projects to just below the threshold. The draft order removes these technologies, as I said, from the NSIP regime, so that consent will generally be sought from the local authority. To ensure consistent treatment, this will also apply to Wales, where the NSIP threshold, at 350 MW, is higher than that in England.
We feel that this measure will unlock investment in larger storage projects, support low-carbon jobs and help to decarbonise our energy system. Our assessment is that it could save the industry up to £7 million a year. As I said, the order does not remove pumped hydro storage from the NSIP regime, as hydro storage technology facilities have significant planning impacts, which we feel should be kept within the NSIP regime. Should Parliament approve the draft order, a parallel order will be required to amend the Electricity Act 1989 to ensure that consents for electricity storage fall within the local planning regime.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on a clear, concise explanation of what the Government are doing. It is rare in a Committee of this type that one actually understands what the Government are trying to do without doing handstands trying to read all the explanatory notes, so well done.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I am pleased to say that I always try to boil down exactly what legislation does and to explain as simply as I can the Government’s aims. Having sat in these Committees, he and I know that many times people simply read out exactly what has been as presented to them, and in many instances—though not, I hasten to add, in this Parliament—Ministers have not really understood what they were saying. That was the impression I had as a Back Bencher, so I have tried to make things simple.
We will ensure that the statutory instrument applies for onshore and offshore facilities. We are working closely with the Welsh Government, who will pass their own legislation on storage located off the Welsh coast. The order will ensure that storage is treated appropriately in the planning system. That will unlock investment, which is critical to the net zero strategy that we have set ourselves.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I will put the Committee out of its potential misery this morning by saying that we do not intend to divide it. As I said in a recent Delegated Legislation Committee, I am not sure it would be terribly constructive, given the number of Opposition Members present. In fact, I fully welcome the order, not only for the clarity with which the Minister set out its effects, but for the clear difference that it will make to the development and onward march of battery storage, which is a crucial development in our energy arena.
I am slightly disappointed that the pumped storage threshold was not increased to 200 MW in the planning regime. The Minister did not make a great deal of that, but consultation on pumped storage that indicated that the industry would certainly like the change. That was not considered to be necessary; however, it is a pretty minor thing compared with the step forward being taken in the draft order.
I want to spend a few moments talking about how the SI reached the present stage. It has been known for a long time that the NSIP regime, compared with the planning regime, is a substantial impediment to the development of battery storage, particularly as it gets to about 50 MW. The Minister is right to say that there has been a clustering of developments below that level. Indeed, in some instances, developers have proposed chains of below-50 MW battery storage units with the aim of staying under the threshold. That point was raised during consideration of the Energy Act 2016, along with another important element of support for the development of battery storage: the creation of a separate licensing regime for storage, either as a subset of generation or as a stand-alone arrangement. There was a clear case for action on both those elements in 2016.
The proposal emerged again in the smart systems and flexibility plan in July 2017. Indeed, it was stated at the time that the intention was to make changes to both the licensing arrangements and the threshold arrangement and consultations were held two years later. On changes to the licensing regime, the latest statement on that is in the update to the smart systems and flexibility plan, which states:
“The Government has completed preparatory work to define storage in primary legislation.”
By the way, that is two years after I tabled an amendment to the Energy Act 2016, which I will modestly say was brilliantly crafted and absolutely fit for purpose. The Minister at the time said that amendment could not be accepted because it might interfere with the preparations that the Government were making for the discussion of this precise point.
Roll on four years and we finally have this SI. As I said, I welcome that greatly, but I also reflect on the fact that it has taken four years to get to this position, when the industry has been crying out for this change throughout that whole period. Not only that, but as far as amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 are concerned—the Minister said there will shortly be an amendment to that Act, to fully plant this change in the legislative process—there has been no such progress with the licensing regime. Nothing has happened. Four years on, we are still no further forward with the change in the licensing regime under the 1989 Act.
These are not academic reflections; they are real reflections about a real industry that is suffering badly in terms of the development that we absolutely need if we are to achieve a low-carbon energy market. We still do not have the finishing line in sight as far as those changes are concerned. Will the Minister reflect on the time that this SI has taken to get to the statute book? I ask him to get his skates on in making sure that the regime for battery storage, and indeed for storage generally, is as good as we can get it, as quickly as we can get it, so that the changes we all want are made as soon as possible.
Kwasi Kwarteng
As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman has widened the scope of the discussion, and many of the issues that he has raised are more appropriately debated on the Floor of the House in subsequent debates and in consideration of primary legislation.
I have to stress that this SI has very simple and very clear purpose, which the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically supports. I say to all hon. Members, look at the SI and welcome the fact that it removes electricity storage from the NSIP regime, makes planning far more local, and, I believe, will ease the deployability of capital in this regard. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the sector is suffering; it has been very successful, but I appreciate that there is a degree of urgency. I am happy to commend this order, and I thank all members of the Committee for attending this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Legal Protections for Armed Forces Personnel and Veterans
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today, I am announcing the publication of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) analysis and response to the 2019 public consultation on “Legal Protections for Armed Forces Personnel and Veterans serving in operations outside the United Kingdom”. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and will be published on gov.uk.
There were over 4,200 responses to the consultation, with approximately 3,750 of respondents identifying as being a current serving member of the armed forces, or a veteran, or a relative of either. We also received approximately 20 responses from legal firms, interest groups and NGOs.
The analysis and response includes statistical data and identifies the key themes drawn from the textual comments provided by respondents. A MOD response has been provided for each question set to explain how we have reflected on these key themes, and also against the more general points made by respondents (points not directly linked to the questions and measures in the consultation). While the responses to the consultation proposals were overwhelmingly supportive, in order to ensure a balanced analysis, we have also referenced where respondents either did not support or expressed concerns about the proposed measures.
The analysis of the responses helped to guide our thinking and to shape the legal protections measures that we introduced on 18 March 2020 in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, to deliver our manifesto commitment to legislate to prevent vexatious claims being brought against the armed forces. I look forward to discussing this vitally important issue with the House on Second Reading of the Bill.
The attachment can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-09-17/HCWS456/.
[HCWS456]
Manchester Arena Inquiry Terms of Reference: Amendment
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
On 22 October 2019 I announced an independent public inquiry to investigate the deaths of the victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena terror attack, and the terms of reference for that inquiry.
I have now received a request from the inquiry’s chair, Sir John Saunders, to make a small addition to the terms of reference. The additional text was not explicitly included in the original terms of reference due to the risk of prejudicing a future trial. That trial has now completed and therefore I have agreed that it is in the public interest that the terms of reference should more fully reflect the scope of the inquiry’s investigations.
Therefore the following text will be added to section 1 (ii): “whether Prevent referrals should have been made in respect of Salman Abedi and/or any of his family members”.
The updated terms of reference can be found on the inquiry’s website at www.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk.
I would like to thank Sir John Saunders for his continued work, and I pay tribute to the strength and courage of all those who will be sharing their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.
[HCWS455]
Rough Sleeping
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
On 18 July, as part of the Government’s “Everyone In” initiative, we launched the next steps accommodation programme to support local authorities and their partners to prevent the nearly 15,000 people accommodated during the pandemic from returning to the streets. There are two parts to this funding: £105 million to pay for short-term and immediate accommodation and support; and £161 million to deliver 3,300 units of longer-term move-on accommodation this year—part of the £433 million total.
Today I have announced the allocations for the short-term aspect of this funding. 274 councils across England will be receiving £91.5 million to provide short-term and immediate accommodation and support to help vulnerable people to move on into sustainable accommodation. This funding will enable councils and providers to support individuals into the private rented sector, facilitate reconnections with friends and family, or maintain or extend emergency accommodation where necessary on a short-term basis, including where additional provision is required over the winter. Additionally, this funding will allow local areas to provide support for those with complex needs. We will continue to work with local authorities to allocate the remaining £13.5 million funding to enable them to tackle new or emerging challenges.
For the longer-term aspect of the fund, we are progressing our assessment of bids. This includes conducting due diligence regarding proposals and undertaking further negotiations where required to make proposals viable. Details on successful bids will be announced in due course. This allocation is part of a broader £433 million funding package which will provide 6,000 homes for rough sleepers over the course of the Parliament, the largest ever investment in accommodation of this kind.
Taken together, this funding will provide immediate reassurance to those housed as part of our “Everyone In” campaign and give longer-term assurance of more move-on accommodation—ensuring as few people as possible return to the streets.
Today’s announcement is on top of the £112 million rough sleeping initiative funding provided to councils earlier this year. We have also provided £3.7 billion to help councils to manage the impacts of covid-19, including supporting homeless people and a further £3.2 million in emergency funding for local authorities to support vulnerable rough sleepers as part of a total package of almost £28 billion of support to councils, communities and businesses since March. An additional £23 million will be provided so that vulnerable individuals experiencing rough sleeping, including those currently in emergency accommodation as a response to covid-19, can access the specialist help they need for substance dependency issues. This funding, together with our pledge to enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act fully, demonstrates our commitment to making the most of this opportunity to transform the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society, and to ending rough sleeping for good.
[HCWS457]
Disability Benefits Operational Update
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I would like to update the House on the Department’s plans to implement the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v. MM, known as MM1, into the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment process.
The Supreme Court judgment concerned the definition of “social support”, when engaging with other people face to face, in activity 9 of the PIP regulations, and how far in advance that support can be provided.
I set out to the House on 23 July 2019 that we would carefully consider the full judgment before updating the House on our implementation plans. We have worked hard to implement the judgment quickly, but given the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on our staff resources and services, this has taken longer than we would have liked. We have also consulted Mind, the mental health charity, which intervened in the Supreme Court case.
We have now made the necessary changes to the way PIP activity 9 is assessed and these are reflected in revisions to the PIP assessment guidance (PIPAG) published today on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-the-assessment-criteria.
Despite the challenges, all DWP staff and healthcare professionals working for our assessment providers have been trained to apply the judgment. DWP will be applying the changes to all decisions from today. A FAQ will be deposited in the Library of the House.
On 23 July 2019, I also confirmed that the Department would be undertaking an administrative exercise to check whether claimants are entitled to more PIP as a result of the judgment. This is a complicated exercise and we are still planning our approach. This will be a substantial undertaking and will take some time.
I also want to update the House on the administration of severe disability premium transitional payments (SDP).
On 22 July 2019, we laid legislation to provide additional financial support for former SDP recipients who had moved to universal credit on account of a change of circumstances. As at 17 January 2020, we had already paid over 15,000 people, totalling more than £51.5 million.
The Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 provide for the conversion of these transitional payments into transitional elements. This means that payments will be made through the UC system rather than manually, and all transitional protection will be subject to the same rules.
I will be signing a determination setting the conversion day to 8 October 2020 and will place a copy in the Library. This is when the UC system will have capacity to convert SDP transitional payments to transitional elements.
1Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant) v MM (Respondent)(Scotland) 18 July 2019 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0215-judgment.pdf.
[HCWS454]
House of Lords
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Clarke of Nottingham
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members of the House are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Energy: Hydrogen
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Hydrogen Advisory Council will develop a fully-funded hydrogen strategy for the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Hydrogen Advisory Council was established in July to formalise Government/industry engagement. The council and its working groups will inform the development of a UK hydrogen strategy, which will be published before COP 26 early next year. Similarly, those involved in the council and the working groups will of course play a role in its implementation. The strategy will include discussion around the costs associated with the expansion of the UK hydrogen economy and how these might be met.
Lord Oates (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he join me in celebrating Britain’s leading role in hydrogen technology? We are making world-first hydrogen buses in Ballymena, Falkirk and Yorkshire, and world-first hydrogen boilers in Worcester and Preston, and building the world’s first green hydrogen gigafactory in Sheffield. Does he agree that, if we are to maintain our competitive edge, our hydrogen strategy must do three things: grow supply and demand in parallel, establish regional hydrogen hubs, and start with technologies that are available now and easy to scale up, such as hydrogen buses and trains?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely correct. He makes a very good point that this is an important new developing technology that we will want to support as much as we can. The UK is well placed to play a leading role in all the areas that he mentions, and when the hydrogen strategy is published it will take account of all those factors.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I understand that most of the hydrogen that is consumed in the UK is generated by the steam reformation of methane, whereby one molecule of methane and one of water produce three molecules of hydrogen and one of carbon monoxide, which rapidly becomes carbon dioxide. The process is therefore by no means carbon neutral. Moreover, it requires a substantial input of energy, which at present is liable to come from fossil fuels. Are the Government prepared to insist that in future the supply of hydrogen will be produced by electrolysis? Will they also take steps to ensure that there will be a regular supply of carbon-neutral electricity sufficient for the purpose? Can we be assured that the hydrogen strategy has a purpose beyond that of supplementing our dwindling supplies of natural gas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Viscount is of course referring to the different kinds of hydrogen, referred to as green and blue hydrogen. We take the view that both will be needed to meet the UK’s potential hydrogen demand by 2050. Blue hydrogen has a role to play in producing cost-effective low-carbon hydrogen at scale, but of course we will need to use carbon-capture technology along with it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as taxpayers we spend a lot of money paying renewable energy sources—solar, and particularly wind—not to produce when we do not need that energy. That is something we renewable energy advocates all feel slightly embarrassed about. Is this not a way to ensure that this never happens in future and that the surplus electricity generated at those peak times is used for the electrolysis method? That would ensure we were a hydrogen economy. Also, when are we going to get the energy White Paper?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can certainly agree with the noble Lord’s first point; he is entirely correct. The energy White Paper should be out towards the end of this year.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my energy interests as in the register. Does my noble friend agree that hydrogen as an energy vector is an old story with an entirely new life nowadays? Has he noticed that Japan has declared its aim to be the world’s first hydrogen-based economy, safely using both green hydrogen from surplus renewable electricity, of which there is plenty, and blue hydrogen or hythane, already referred to, when mixed with natural gas? Could the very welcome new Hydrogen Advisory Council be encouraged to follow Japan closely or even rival that ambition?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely correct that a number of other countries are developing hydrogen strategies. However, the Government believe that the UK is currently well placed and in the leading pack internationally. We are keeping pace with international developments and leading in a number of international fora on this subject.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, when around 80% of UK households have gas heating systems and these systems account for about 30% of the UK’s CO2 emissions, will the Government’s hydrogen strategy include a commitment to introduce hydrogen-ready boilers for 2025? This would not only support our net-zero targets but sustain and create thousands of jobs, since we are of course home to companies such as Worcester Bosch and Baxi, which are making world-first hydrogen boilers.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely correct. We are planning to publish a heat and buildings strategy in due course, setting out the immediate actions we will take. We are already working with Baxi and Worcester Bosch, the companies she mentioned, on hydrogen-ready boilers. These have been developed under a £25 million pot of funding, which BEIS provided.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Hydrogen in transport is key to unlocking its wider use across the economy; there are some relatively quick and easy wins. The renewable transport fuel obligation already exists. Have the Government progressed plans to extend the RTFO guidance to include both green and blue hydrogen as vehicle fuels, with legislative changes to encourage the supply chain necessary to deploy hydrogen bus and train fleets?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are closely examining all these matters. The noble Lord makes a good point and these matters will be addressed in the hydrogen strategy, when it is published in due course.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I believe that industry is very anxiously awaiting the hydrogen strategy to which the Minister refers. As other noble Lords have said, green hydrogen, which does not produce CO2, is relatively easy to make using the surplus energy we have, most of it from wind. The strategy must make great efforts in that direction.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Green hydrogen is relatively easy to make from electrolysis but it uses large amounts of electricity, so we need to work on improving the technology. However, these are all factors that we are already working on with industry in the Hydrogen Advisory Council, which will advise us on the next steps forward with the hydrogen strategy.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a former UK Energy Minister and as listed in the register. The need for a hydrogen strategy is now well overdue, as we have heard. Where is the promised £100 million low-carbon hydrogen production fund? Given that most of the new nuclear schemes have collapsed, how are the Government now going to achieve their low-carbon targets?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord mentioned the £100 million of investment through the low-carbon hydrogen production fund. We are proceeding with that while also investing up to £121 million between 2015 and 2021 in hydrogen innovation. Yes, we are waiting for the strategy but also getting on with some of the key building blocks in advance of it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister give an indication of when the specific terms of reference of the Hydrogen Advisory Council will be published? Will he confirm the welcome news that low-carbon hydrogen use at scale is a central plank of our hosting of COP 26 in Glasgow next year?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Hydrogen Advisory Council has already been established and is meeting. My noble friend is entirely correct that hydrogen will play a key role in our decarbonisation efforts. We will want to set that out fully before the COP in 2021.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Currently the major basis for hydrogen production, as other noble Lords have said, is steam methane reforming, of which CO2 is a by-product. It requires the successful deployment of CCS, which is a high risk from an engineering and commercial perspective. Does the Minister agree that a drive in research and development towards non-methane reforming sources of production needs to be a major priority?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree that we need to look at all available technologies for the production of hydrogen, whether blue or green, including electrolysis and other methods. It will be a key fuel for our decarbonisation efforts and we need to consider all available technologies.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I too refer to my interests in the register. I congratulate my noble friend on the fund for innovation but can he also tell me what work is being done with the construction industry for future builds, to try to ensure that the innovation we are investing in is deployed into the new build?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will shortly set out a heat and buildings strategy, which will take account of these factors. As I mentioned earlier, we are already working with the boiler manufacturers through a £25 million fund to see how much hydrogen we can currently inject into the system. Experiments are taking place in various parts of the country to see how we can deploy hydrogen into the domestic gas networks. Obviously, we need to work with the boiler manufacturers to ensure that that works.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Maritime Industry
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mountevans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion, if any, of the increased research and innovation funding, announced in the Budget on 11 March, is allocated to the maritime industry to assist that sector to meet its net zero emissions obligations.
Lord Mountevans (CB) [V]
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my maritime interests, as listed in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The Chancellor has made it clear that one of his priorities is to make the UK a science superpower, including leading on the development of technologies that will support the Government’s ambition to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. In the autumn, the comprehensive spending review will set out details of this historic investment, giving researchers and innovators confidence and ensuring that we can meet the objectives we have set out in the R&D roadmap.
Lord Mountevans (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. The maritime industry has worked tirelessly during the Covid emergency to keep vital supply lines open, but this has come at a cost and businesses’ cash reserves are now heavily depleted. The industry has submitted a bid for £1 billion of government investment under the comprehensive spending review to kick-start decarbonisation. This would create nearly 75,000 jobs in the maritime industry, across every nation of the UK and especially in our coastal communities. It would help to position Britain as a world leader in maritime decarbonisation, which will be an enormous area of business. Does the Minister recognise the potential of this investment and would he be willing to meet me and industry representatives to explore these possibilities and opportunities?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. The Government carry out their own research into the potential economic opportunities from low and zero-carbon emission shipping, and I recognise that this represents a historic opportunity for the UK. I would certainly be happy to organise a meeting for him, either with my department or the Department for Transport, whichever is the most appropriate.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
[Inaudible.]—maritime still has a hurdle to climb. The recent Global Maritime Issues Monitor cited the World Maritime University’s research into workforce diversity, stating:
“Without increased diversity in the next 10 years, the pace of innovation in the maritime industry will be slow”.
This also applies to achieving net-zero emissions targets. The report made it clear that workforce diversity includes race and gender diversity and is relevant to the issue of net-zero targets. Therefore, what role do the Government have in promoting such diversity in the maritime industry?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government agree with the need to increase diversity in the maritime sector if it is to meet the challenges of the future. Of course, we need to embrace talent from everywhere. In support of this, we have been working actively with the sector to promote greater diversity. One notable success has been the Women in Maritime task force, established in 2018.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister tell us how far on the research into the use of butane, methane and ammonia is? Although the use of ammonia creates zero harmful emissions, my shipping friends here in Norway tell me that using ammonia as a fuel creates a very unpleasant smell. Is that problem being addressed? Incidentally, does the Minister know that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, is very highly thought of in the maritime world, especially here in Norway?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, I was aware of the high regard in which many Peers in this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, are held in all countries, including Norway, I am sure. I agree with the noble Lord that the challenge of decarbonisation in the maritime sector is a great one and we are looking at a number of alternative fuels, one of which is ammonia.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, as we are a nation that imports so much food and uses the maritime system so extensively, what does the Minister think about the fact that we do not yet count the emissions from shipping in our carbon budgets? Can the Government tell me what plans they have to include the sector in the decarbonisation plans to reach net zero?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We count the emissions from domestic shipping in our carbon budget plans, but the noble Baroness is right, of course, that we need to work internationally—through the International Maritime Organization and other fora—to reduce the emissions from shipping worldwide.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that we should wait until the comprehensive spending review to see how much research money would go into this sector, but could he confirm that funding is going into the research and development of low-carbon ferries, which are very important in this country? Will the Government also support the construction of such a ferry at the recently rescued high-tech Appledore Shipyard for the Isles of Scilly to Penzance route, which would then replace the 43 year-old “Scillonian III”?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know the noble Lord takes a close interest in developments on the Isles of Scilly; I have dealt with him in my previous jobs on similar matters. However, as I am sure he is aware, I cannot give specific spending commitments at this stage.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, decarbonising the maritime sector is going to require concerted effort on a global scale. Can the Minister say what position the UK is taking within the IMO with regard to incentives for the sector to decarbonise and, in particular, a proposal to introduce a small tax on bunker fuel—which is currently untaxed—which could be used to build a fund to carry out more R&D into decarbonisation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that, as one of the leading shipping nations, we are working closely with a number of other nations in the IMO to bring about a reduction in emissions from the maritime sector. I am not aware of our precise position on the matters that the noble Baroness mentions, so I will write to her on that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have heard a lot about the maritime industry and I strongly support that. However, I wonder what the position is on the air industry because, at the moment, there is a tremendous build-up from the public, who are waiting to be able to fly anywhere to get away from everything. It is a most important industry and I believe that it is complying with things like zero-emissions targets. However, the Government really must be aware of this need; how do they intend to meet it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The ingenuity with which noble Lords extend these subjects far and wide never ceases to impress me, but the Question is on maritime emissions. The noble Baroness makes an important point about emissions from aircraft, which I am sure is duly noted.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The Government have repeatedly been asked to plug the gap of the exclusion of international aviation and shipping from the provisions of the Climate Change Act. In July, reports hinted that—at last—it was the Government’s intention to add shipping to its net-zero target but not until 2023. To take the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, a little further, I ask the Minister to explain the delay—especially after the Committee on Climate Change called for shipping to be formally included in the UK’s climate targets under the carbon budget?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, we already include domestic shipping but, of course, putting shipping in our carbon budgets is very much an international matter. We work with other countries to ensure that emissions are counted in the same way for every country, but I have noted the noble Lord’s points.
Lord Greenway (CB) [V]
My Lords, we have a proud history of innovation, especially in the marine field, and any help that the Government can give the shipping industry in this connection is most welcome. Without shipping, world trade would be a shadow of what it is today. Is not the real nub behind the Question to find a viable replacement for the modern combustion engine? Ships are very different from trains and cars and for a large ship—weighing several hundred thousand tonnes—to steam across the oceans of the world for over 20 years, a major solution is required. What are the Government doing to find this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a valid point about the difficulties of decarbonising the maritime sector, and this is one reason why we are looking at alternative methods of propulsion. However, he is right to highlight the challenges.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be familiar with the Accelerating the Low Carbon Transition report, published by Brookings in conjunction with the Energy Transitions Commission. It is a mine of useful information and includes this fact:
“The top 20 ports, located in just 12 countries and jurisdictions, control 45% of global container freight.”
In preparation for COP 26, what steps are the Government taking to bring these countries and jurisdictions together to discuss a common regulatory approach to shipping emissions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We are working with a number of other countries through the International Maritime Organization, and we accept that the maritime sector has an R&D gap, with little investment in alternative fuels to date, which is holding back decarbonisation. Therefore, there is no question that the sector presents a great challenge for the net-zero efforts.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
REACH and CE
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards introducing (1) a regulation system for chemicals to replace the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulations, and (2) a conformity assessed quality standard to replace the CE certification mark.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The preparations that we have made for the possibility of a no-deal exit mean that we are well placed to be ready with our own independent regulatory regime for chemicals by 1 January 2021. On that date, the UKCA marking will also be introduced as a replacement for the EU’s CE marking. Further details on that were published earlier this month.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
The Minister is in great demand today, but I have to tell him that his proposed framework for the UK REACH is weaker than the one that it is replacing, yet, if we want frictionless trade, we must have common standards. The existing system has kept us safe and secure for many years and has protected our environment. Surely in the current circumstances, instead of pointless and risky duplication, our resources should be put into rebuilding our economy and preserving jobs. This can be helped by simply seeking associate membership of the scheme and not duplicating it. That is what the industry wants. Will the Government do it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, we have made it clear that seeking associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency would require us to accept the judgment and oversight of the European Court of Justice, which is not acceptable. Therefore, we will set up our own regime.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, this is yet another burden of Brexit. Will the Minister tell the House what the cost will be to the Government and to businesses? Given the fiasco of test and trace, will he give an absolute guarantee that the regime will be up and running by 1 January?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, I can give the noble Lord that guarantee. We will keep the transition to UK REACH as simple as possible. We have put in place measures to minimise the cost to businesses and maintain access to both the EU and the UK market.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many different EU product regulation systems currently govern UK trade with the EU and what progress the Government have made in providing some sort of replacement for them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can tell my noble friend that there are a number of distinct EU regulatory regimes, including bespoke regimes for chemicals, automotive products, aerospace products, cosmetics and medicines, as well as the CE marking regime, which covers a range of goods. Some but not all of these include registration requirements. Cosmetics and medical devices, as well as chemicals, are examples of areas that include registration or notification requirements. I can confirm that all the necessary regulation and systems will be in place for 1 January 2021.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the UK agency replacing REACH will spend £13 million a year and employ about 40 staff, to replace an agency with more than 600 staff and a budget of more than €100 million. As the UK’s new database of chemical safety will not have access to the EU’s chemical safety database, is there a risk, about which my noble friend might be able to reassure the House, that we might not be equipped to counter the potential for unscrupulous manufacturers to dump products on the UK market that fail to meet the safety standards?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are aware of the possibility, but of course we are working hard to make sure that does not happen. The registration requirements in the UK will be as strict as they were previously; we are seeking to duplicate many aspects of the previous regime. Of course, we are seeking during the negotiations a data-sharing agreement with the European Chemicals Agency which will reduce the costs and burdens of the new scheme.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Government have been flexible. They have listened and proposed lengthening the registration time for chemicals under British REACH, which I think is welcomed by the industry. However, the cost of registering chemicals has not been addressed. That additional red tape will cost British industry at least £1 billion—that is its estimate. This is money being spent on re-registering chemicals today that cannot be spent on creating jobs for tomorrow. Can the Minister undertake to be similarly flexible when looking at costs and redouble efforts with his department and other departments to address this tax on British business?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in previous answers, we are endeavouring to be as flexible as possible to keep the transition as simple as possible and to reduce the costs. As I said, we are seeking a data-sharing agreement with the European Chemicals Agency which will make the registration process relatively straight- forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the EU Environment Sub-Committee wrote to my noble friend before the summer. Can he confirm today whether he shares my concern at the risk of a lack of oversight of the decision-making process within UK REACH? Can he further confirm what significant resources will be made available to the Health and Safety Executive to give it the tools it needs to manage effectively a new regulation regime?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have put in place a new UK REACH IT system, closely modelled on the European system to make the process as simple and as easily replicable as possible. The HSE has been provided with the appropriate resources to police the new system.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, when the transition period ends, health and environmental protection in Northern Ireland in respect of chemical and pesticide imports will be considerably better than in the rest of the United Kingdom because Northern Ireland will still be covered by the existing EU REACH rules and regulations under the withdrawal agreement?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No. We intend the system in the UK to be as safe and as effective as the EU REACH system.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
Under the Northern Ireland protocol, the process for Northern Ireland businesses moving goods to and from the EU under EU REACH will not change. What does that mean for goods going from Britain to Northern Ireland? Will Northern Ireland businesses have to grandfather their EU registrations into UK REACH?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland will remain aligned with all relevant EU rules relating to the placing on the market of manufactured goods and with the EU REACH system.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the UKCA marking will not be applicable in Northern Ireland, whereas the CE marking will be, as well as the UKNI marking. Can the Minister afford the House some advice? What advice would he give to suppliers and traders working in the United Kingdom and producing in Great Britain if they might see their goods popping up in a shop in Northern Ireland? Should they register both with the CE marking and the UKCA marking to ensure that their goods can be marketed not only in Northern Ireland but across the European Union?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If those traders wanted to sell their goods into the European Union market, because that was the system they had, they would have to be CE marked. They would have to comply with similar standards if they wanted to sell them in the North American market.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Taiwan
(4 years, 3 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 reports of the presence of the Chinese Air Force in Taiwan’s airspace; and what steps they are taking to support the independence of that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is concerned by any activity that risks destabilising the cross-strait status quo. All sides should refrain from taking provocative actions and resolve their differences through peaceful dialogue. Our long-standing policy on Taiwan has not changed; we have a strong, unofficial relationship with Taiwan based on dynamic commercial, educational and cultural ties.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response. China clearly rejects international rules and values, as evidenced by events in Hong Kong, on the Sino-Indian border and in the South China Sea, and, most recently, by its repeated aggressive incursions into Taiwan’s airspace. Does not the UK’s reluctance to provide Taiwan with overt political, diplomatic and trade support indicate tolerance for China’s expansionist policies, with particular reference to Taiwan?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we remain very strong in ensuring that, on the basis I have already outlined, we continue to strengthen our wide range of exchanges with Taiwan, including in relation to trade. Where the recognition of a state is not a prerequisite to any involvement or engagement in international bodies, we have stood up for the right of Taiwan to be part of those discussions—we are very much in favour of that.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister condemn this further blatant act of aggression by the communist regime in China of threatening its neighbours and stealing islands in the South China Sea? Will he work with all other free, democratic nations to strengthen the military commitment to Taiwan and make it clear that Taiwan is an independent country and not part of the People’s Republic of China?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already outlined, we have repeatedly stood up on the basis of our relationship with Taiwan. On the actual challenges that Taiwan faces in the context of China, we consider that the Taiwan issue is one to be settled peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Again, I reiterate to my noble friend that we call out where there are issues of disagreement with China, and anything that seeks to destabilise the current status quo in the Taiwan Strait is a matter of concern for Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, increasingly China is exercising its economic, military and political influence, as has been mentioned, in the South China Sea, India, Australia and of course Hong Kong, and in some nations in Africa and Latin America. Is it not time that there was a joint meeting of the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom to agree a joint policy towards China before there is a horrible incident?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there are many areas of concern, which I have outlined from the Dispatch Box, in China’s recent behaviour and its exercising particular policies and programmes within the context of the South China Sea, to which the noble Lord referred. We have discussed several times in the Chamber, and I am sure will continue to, the recent concerns we have had over the actions it has taken through the security law in Hong Kong and the continued issue of human rights in mainland China, particularly with regard to the Uighurs. These will remain the subject of discussions with our allies, close friends and partners, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the continued campaign to isolate Taiwan by the People’s Republic is limited not just to economic and military issues. There is, obviously, the response by the WHO. Of course, at the time of this pandemic, it is really important that Taiwan is able to input its response into the WHO. We need to ensure that this campaign of isolation does not continue. While I am on the subject of the WHO, what further has the Minister done to raise with it the clear evidence of forced organ harvesting in China? Will the UK argue for an end to self-assessment and a move towards independent verification?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, concerns have been raised with the World Health Organization on the issue of organ harvesting. I know the noble Lord is aware that the evidence does not comply with action in this regard, but I am sure that we will return to those discussions.
On the initial question about the World Health Organization and World Health Assembly, we continue to lobby in that respect. This is an organisation where the criteria that I outlined earlier about statehood not being a prerequisite applies. Given the performance of Taiwan in dealing with the Covid-19 crisis, I think that it has an important contribution to make in this regard.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the US Mission to the UN has tweeted that the UN
“was founded to serve … all voices”
in the world, and that
“Barring … Taiwan … is an affront not just to the … Taiwanese people, but to UN principles.”
Does the Minister agree?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have just said in my previous answer, we regard the relationship with Taiwan as an important one bilaterally. Equally, we believe that Taiwan has a role to play in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. In the current pandemic of Covid-19, Taiwan’s response shows that it can make a valuable contribution. Therefore, we hope that in November, for example, at the World Health Assembly, it is allowed to attend as an observer.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, this country has recognised the Government in Beijing as the legitimate authority in China since January 1950, with a very distinctive status, as the Minister has acknowledged, for Taiwan, which should be discussed peacefully between the authorities in Taipei and those on the mainland. I am glad to hear about the Minister’s lobbying in connection with the World Health Organization. Would he care to comment on this pattern of marked aggression by the current Chinese Government, which has sought to limit options for people at home and abroad and is so damaging?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise the importance of a peaceful discussion on the issue of Taiwan between people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. I agree with him. Increasingly we have seen human rights issues where China is concerned, and I have spoken on that from the Dispatch Box. Our relationship with China is a strategic one, but that does not prevent us from calling out human rights abuses when they occur.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that any representations that the UK makes in relation to the violation of Taiwan’s airspace by the PRC exemplify the unnecessary weakening of the UK’s authority and soft power brought about by the Government’s cavalier attitude to the admitted breach of international law by their introduction of the internal market Bill, which seeks to alter the provisions of the withdrawal agreement entered into with the European Union and signed by the Prime Minister?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s latter point, I think my right honourable friend the Prime Minister clarified the intent behind the internal market Bill. On the substance of the noble Lord’s question in general, we continue to defend the rights of people around the world, including those in China, where human rights abuses occur and where there are international agreements, as we have talked about before. On the agreements between China and the United Kingdom on Hong Kong, we will continue to lobby to ensure that “one country, two systems” is sustained going forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I recently had the pleasure of visiting Taiwan with the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. I found there a proud, flourishing, democratic country, constantly bullied and threatened by China. Inexplicably, the UK does not recognise Taiwan. What steps have the Government actually taken to remonstrate with China over the recent unprovoked belligerence, and all the other petty measures that it regularly takes to try to intimidate its neighbour?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about the vibrancy of the democracy. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary congratulated the president on her election at the time. I share the noble Baroness’s concern: whether we are talking about Taiwan or Hong Kong or mainland China, these are deeply concerning issues and we continue to raise them bilaterally, and where necessary in multilateral fora, to ensure that the issues can be addressed quite directly.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is united in its condemnation of China’s incursions into Taiwanese airspace, which are clearly acts of provocation. Have Her Majesty’s Government made their opposition to these actions clear to the Chinese ambassador in London? What consideration has been given to supporting Taiwan in strengthening its military defences as a means of demonstrating our revulsion at Beijing’s arrogant aggression?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on any attempt to impact the status quo. I say again what I said before: the issue of Taiwan is one to be settled peacefully for both sides. It is important for China to sustain and retain its objective of settling any disputes with Taiwan in a peaceful manner and in the interests of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed.
Brexit: Civil Service Code
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of reports that new guidance has been issued to civil servants working on Brexit, whether civil servants are expected to “comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice” as set out in the Civil Service Code.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, all civil servants are subject to the Civil Service Code in supporting the Government to put forward the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill for debate in Parliament. The previous Cabinet Secretary was clear at the time that civil servants could and should work on the legislation and its passage through Parliament, as set out in the Government’s legal statement.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
Despite the resignation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the Government’s breach of international law, other Ministers seem to kid themselves that it does not conflict with their Ministerial Code. However, the resignation of Whitehall’s top legal officer, Sir Jonathan Jones, suggests that the work on the internal markets Bill could breach the Civil Service Code’s requirement to comply with the law—despite the new Cabinet Secretary’s apparent offering of safe harbour. Given that one senior civil servant, we hear, has advised colleagues uncomfortable with this to alert their superiors, would the Government extend the directions mechanism from expenditure to policy work, so that Ministers can be asked to provide a direction to work on Clauses 42 to 45? Can the Minister assure the House that no civil servant will be expected to breach their code?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the situation should not arise because, as the noble Baroness has said, the new Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that he is content for civil servants to work on the Bill and to support Ministers in their duties as it passes through the House. Civil servants are not being asked to act in a way that conflicts with the Civil Service Code. That is the position.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Civil Service Code states very clearly, regarding integrity:
“You must … comply with the law”.
The Government’s legal position states that parliamentary sovereignty can override international agreements, but not domestic law. The withdrawal agreement was passed by both Houses of Parliament and thus became—less than nine months ago—part of our domestic law. If the Cabinet Secretary is now telling civil servants that they can disregard this part of the Civil Service Code, is it not appropriate that the Minister for the Civil Service should make a Statement to Parliament, given that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act makes it clear that the Minister for the Civil Service is responsible to Parliament for the Civil Service Code?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the Cabinet Secretary has made the position clear. All civil servants are of course expected to carry out their role with dedication and commitment to the Civil Service and its core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality, which are, as the noble Lord has said, set out in legislation. In my experience, every civil servant rises to that high level required. The Cabinet Secretary has said that he is content for civil servants to work on this Bill.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that reports on re-educating civil servants on how to comply with the law and the administration of justice have somewhat Orwellian connotations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not familiar with the reports referred to by the noble Lord, but neither I nor any other Minister is auditioning for a part in an Orwell drama.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, this goes much wider in terms of the pressure on the Civil Service to abandon that key element of impartiality. Does the Minister accept that there is a very real danger at the moment, with the Civil Service being asked to collude with procurement policies that not only lack transparency but border on nepotism? Margaret Thatcher’s phrase, about whether someone is “one of us”, is now applied to appointments inside and outside the system. In such circumstances, while we can get rid of a Government when they lose trust, once we lose trust in our institutions, in the application of our law or in the impartiality of our Civil Service, we will be seen by the rest of the world as a tinpot regime.
Lord True (Con)
I do not agree with that and I regret that the noble Lord—with his enormous experience in government, which I hugely admire—takes that view. Everybody in this House and outside who has had experience of working with the Civil Service, as I have over many years, understands the relationship. Sometimes we each have to do things—even Ministers—that, in our heart of hearts, we do not agree with. There is a clear process for civil servants who believe that they are being required to act in a way that conflicts with the code. That system exists and is set out in writing; it is available to the House and I am happy to circulate it to Members. The safeguards are there.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the Attorney-General is said to believe that the obligations under the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes apply to keeping domestic law, but not international law. Is that the Government’s position, or is their position, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, when he was a Justice Minister, that:
“The obligations on Ministers under the law, including international law, remain unchanged.”—[Official Report, 3/11/15; col. 1522.]
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to repeat in detail any position that the Attorney-General may or may not have set out. There are traditional rules on that. The Government’s legal position has been set out and sent to the chairmen of the Select Committees. Do the Government maintain the position set out by previous Administrations that law includes international law? Yes, they do.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what concerns me is how civil servants who might be involved in corruption trials relating to the substantial number of multimillion pound Government contracts let without competition to friends of a special adviser to the Prime Minister will be advised. Any advice from the Minister to them?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think it is mildly wide of the Question before the House. Also, some quite serious allegations were made by the noble Lord. I simply repeat that there are very clear procedures available for civil servants who believe that they are being required to act in a way that conflicts with the code. They can start by taking it to their line manager, and the process goes on. As I have said, I am happy to circulate the appropriate procedures to the House.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have focused on one particular aspect of the Civil Service Code, but there are many other requirements, one of which is that civil servants must not
“frustrate the implementation of policies once decisions are taken by declining to take, or abstaining from, action which flows from those decisions.”
Will my noble friend agree that the balancing of the different requirements in the Civil Service Code is best handled by the Civil Service under the procedures he has referred to, and not by a party-political Parliament?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, I strongly agree with my noble friend. I do think this is a matter that should be left to the judgment of the leaders of the Civil Service—the Cabinet Secretary of the time being the main one. My noble friend is of course quite right to say that—and this was reinforced in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—certain duties and responsibilities do apply to civil servants.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister indicate what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Civil Service regarding the application of the Civil Service Code when there are suggestions of non-compliance with the law—both international and domestic—since the Internal Market Bill will directly impact Northern Ireland?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not been advised on this specific matter within the devolved Administrations and in Northern Ireland, but I will write to the noble Baroness on the subject.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s foreword,
“we must uphold the very highest standards of propriety,”
do the remaining law officers intend to cling to office, where they are aiders and abetters of potential illegality? Has the Lord Chancellor any anxiety about interpreting his statutory duties to uphold the rule of law?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the law officers act at all times in line with their duties and responsibilities, and I have every confidence that the law officers and this Government will continue to do so. For my own part, I cannot answer questions about the personal positions of other members of the Government.
Lord Balfe (Con)
The Question states,
“in the light of reports that new guidance has been issued”.
Could the Minister say whether new guidance has been issued? If it has, will he place a copy in the Library for us to consult? My second point is that it is now 59 years since I became an established civil servant. We have much more of a revolving door these days, and I fear that far too many senior civil servants and Ministers are looking at their next job in the private sector when they are interpreting the regulations. Could the Minister comment as to whether it might be time to review the whole principle of the revolving door? Incidentally, I notice that his colleague, Mr Grayling, went into a £100,000 job this morning, according to the Times.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the last part of my noble friend’s question is again outwith the Question, but it is an important issue and one that the Government and Parliament turn their attention to from time to time. I am sure that people will note his remarks. As for the reports of a new communication, obviously I made inquiries, as was my duty, having seen the Question. We have not been able to locate this particular communication but if, as has been reported, it is a restatement of the long-standing position which is expressed in the Civil Service Code—that if civil servants ever believe they are being required to act in a way that conflicts with the code, they should raise it with their line manager, et cetera—I have already told the House that that is the position and it is unchanged. I do not know whether this alleged communication was saying that. If it was, in a sense I have already offered to put that before the House, but I will take it away.
It is extremely important that we do not let the idea be taken that there is conflict and distaste between Ministers and civil servants. That is not the case; it is partnership. Sometimes, things break out. I was reading Servants of the People the other day, in which Ministers are quoted as saying, “Civil servants are useless” and, “We expected to find Rolls-Royce service; we found a Reliant Robin”. People say things and there are moments of crisis in relationships, but my experience is that there is an outstanding relationship between the ministerial side and the Civil Service side under every Government, whatever one hears reported in the press.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it seems to many of us that there is a less healthy relationship between certain special advisers and Ministers, and that there is a real difference between the code of propriety observed through the centuries by civil servants and the code observed by these more recent arrivals. Will my noble friend arrange for every special adviser and every Minister of the Crown to be sent a copy of the admirable article by our noble friend Lord Hague which appeared in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not personally responsible for the reading habits of every member of the Civil Service, the special adviser corps or the Government. I am sure people have noted what was said. Special advisers are subject to a code. I think that in public life we should all treat each other with grace and understanding, and every now and again there has to be a bit of give and take, of leave and understanding. The fundamental core of Civil Service impartiality remains. The Civil Service’s role as defined in law and practice is something that I and this Government profoundly respect and I am sure it will continue under whoever has the honour of acting as part of the Government in the future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.
Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That a Select Committee be appointed to scrutinise and consider matters relating to common frameworks; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Andrews, B. (Chair), Bruce of Bennachie, L, Caine, L, Crawley, B, Foulkes of Cumnock, L, Garnier, L, Hope of Craighead, L, McInnes of Kilwinning, L, Murphy of Torfaen, L, Randerson, B, Redfern, B, Ritchie of Downpatrick, B, Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Communications and Digital Committee
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 13 and 14 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 September.
Professional Qualifications and Services (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 September.
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume with questions on a Statement made in the House of Commons on Monday 14 September.
Japan Free Trade Agreement
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the department and its officials on reaching this agreement in principle with Japan. It is a much-needed relief for all those UK companies that would have seen their trade with Japan reverted to WTO terms if the agreement had not been reached by the end of the transition period.
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, we assume, will benefit from greater access, faster tariff reductions and stronger GI protections under this agreement than they enjoyed under the previous EU-Japan agreement. However, I hope the Minister will accept that in the absence of sight of the actual treaty text, and a full updated impact assessment, there is much about the UK-Japan agreement that we still do not know until these documents are published.
I welcome what is said in the Statement about the extensive scrutiny of the deal itself that will be offered to the International Trade Committee. I also note that there is a reference to an independently scrutinised impact assessment that the department will produce, so that
“parliamentarians are able to interrogate the deal and prepare a report that is debated in Parliament.”
I ask the Minister to confirm that this offer is also available to the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House, and to confirm also that the timing of these releases of documentation will be such that the necessary scrutiny can be done well before the ratification processes of the CRaG Act are triggered—as of course will be the case in Japan, whose Parliament has to ratify the deal before it can be signed.
I have four other questions. The Statement says there will be a tariff reduction on British exports of food and agriculture, which is welcome. However, presumably this is contingent on sorting out the shared quotas we currently have under the existing EU FTA. For example, does this mean that exports will continue to be restricted unless and until other EU countries fail to use them?
The Statement talks up a new area of co-operation with Japan in the automotive and electronic sectors and suggests there will be considerable growth in new areas such as aeronautics. But, as we discussed in an Oral Question earlier this week, is this not likely to be heavily contingent on final decisions on accumulation and rules of origin after the transition period ends? Can the Minister update us on progress in this area?
I ask the Minister what ISDS clauses are contained in the final agreement. If there are any, how can the Minister justify such secretive and unwelcome provisions when there are ample opportunities for agreed parties to use the normal legal processes operating in both our countries?
Finally, can we get behind the headline comparisons that were fed to the press about the benefits this agreement will produce for the UK? Would the Minister agree with me that the correct comparison is what would have happened if we had simply rolled over the existing EU-Japan deal? To put it another way, can the Minister say what we will be able to do after this FTA is ratified that we cannot do now under the existing EU-Japan FTA—and can he quantify that?
As welcome and necessary as this deal with Japan is, it is still 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, which does not come anywhere near the 47% that we have with Europe. That is why commentary on this deal from Japan suggests that the deal that will determine the future of the investment and jobs that Japanese companies bring to UK communities is not the FTA we have just signed, but the one we hope to sign shortly with Europe.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, because these Benches want the UK to prosper, we welcome the agreement. However, rather like industry groups, we do so not by hailing it but by sighing a collective sigh of relief that we have secured simple continuity of the benefits we secured as part of the EU. It has come to this—simply securing the trading terms that we had as a member of the EU now that we are out of it was described as “heroic” by a Conservative MP in the Commons on Monday.
It is customary to thank the Government for advance notice of a Statement’s accompanying published documents. However, as referred to, in this case it would have been good to have notice of the text of the agreement—which has yet to be signed—so that we could offer proper scrutiny. In Japan, both Houses of the Diet will need to approve the Cabinet’s decision to endorse the treaty. That is not afforded to our Parliament; we will not have an opportunity to do so. British parliamentarians did with the EU agreement. However, as I said last week on the Trade Bill, the Government seek continuity on most things but not on parliamentary accountability. Can the Government Whips indicate that we will have a substantive debate on this agreement in this House before the Government indicate that they seek ratification?
The Minister gave specific details of the agreement when answering questions on Monday, but we have had no sight of the agreement in order to consider the context and scale of what the Minister said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I welcome what Liz Truss said on Monday in the House of Commons, with regard to a copy being given to the International Trade Committee. I also would like to know whether that will be afforded to our committee, the International Agreements Committee, and when this will be done. Will the text also be made available, as is common in other Parliaments, to Front-Bench spokespeople on a private briefing basis at the same time as it is sent to the committees? What will be the timeframe between it being sent to the committees and a debate in this House?
We have to reserve judgment on the wider benefits the Government claim for the agreement until we have seen them. Over recent months, we have seen the enormous capacity of the Government to oversell and then underdeliver. For example, there was massive fanfare over securing tariff-rate quotas for British agricultural products in this agreement, but then reports suggest that we have actually secured access to any non-utilised quota for EU goods.
With even greater heralding activity, the press release announced:
“New protection for more iconic UK goods … from just seven … to potentially over 70 under our new agreement”.
Understandably, MPs in the Commons lined up to welcome this, but can the Minister confirm that the agreement has no new protections creating GIs, as Japan is under no obligation to expand further its recognition in the future to beyond what we have in the EU deal? Rather, it will simply be able to consider further requests from the EU to a limit of 70.
If it transpires that this spin—which has also described the agreement as “gold standard”—is actually just a commitment to talk about further potential agreements, such as geographical indicators, the Government are building up a huge amount of expectation for very limited benefit. Given the fact that Japanese company Hitachi’s agreement for nuclear power on Anglesey is likely to have a bigger negative economic impact on the United Kingdom than any benefits of this trade agreement, context is all.
On state aid, the Minister referred to a Question I asked on Monday, and he said clearly that this a perpetuation of EU rules which we will be bound by. Can the Minister be clear and tell the House whether it will require domestic state aid legislation to implement this and, if so, will it be a continuation of the EU regime? When will that be brought forward? On tariffs, what will the overall average Japanese import tariff on UK goods be under this agreement, compared to what we have at the moment?
Finally, the Government said that the benefits are likely to yield £15 billion to the UK economy, but they have not given a timeframe. I looked at the Government’s scoping paper, and it said that that source simply stated over “the long term”. The source for that, in the footnote, was internal DIT analysis from 2018. Will the Government publish that? What is the timeframe for that £15 billion—with no caveat—the Government have announced, overselling and underdelivering again? What is the figure? The Government did not quote from that scoping exercise that that figure does not take into consideration the economic impacts of Covid-19, so what is the real likely benefit?
If we are to see the benefits from this agreement, which we wish to, the Government have to be open and transparent. So far, that transparency is lacking. I hope that the Government will be far more open in the coming weeks.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches opposite for welcoming the agreement. I share their view that this is a good agreement for the United Kingdom.
I will do all I can to answer the questions put to me. First, I can confirm that the IAC—our committee which scrutinises agreements—will be treated on all fours with the ITC, and anything that goes to the ITC will also go to the IAC. The next stage, which is going on at the moment, is that the agreement is being “legally scrubbed”, or put into a good state. When that is done, which will probably be sometime in early October, that agreement in the first instance will be presented in its entirety to the two committees. It will be presented to them in good time for them to report on the agreement at the same time as the whole agreement is laid before your Lordships’ House.
At the same time as we present the agreement, we will present an impact assessment, which will set out the impact of this agreement in various environmental and other matters and, critically, we will publish another assessment which shows where this agreement differs from the previous EU agreement. Therefore, if noble Lords do not mind waiting, when that final package appears in front of the committees, and through the committees to themselves, it will answer the questions that have been asked.
I repeat that we have no desire at all not to be transparent and open with your Lordships’ House. It will be of great benefit to us if these agreements are well understood. They are important in themselves but they will be even more important once our businesses throughout the land understand them and are able to operationalise them to their own benefit.
On some of the specific questions that were raised, I can confirm that there is no ISDS clause in this agreement, so that should not be a matter of concern. Rules of origin are the same as in the previous EU-Japan agreement but with three improvements: our coats, knitwear and biscuits industries have extended rules of origin, so will be able to bring in ingredients from a wider range of places than they could under the previous agreement. Therefore, noble Lords who enjoy their shortbread can be assured that it will now be sold on even better terms into Japan.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned quotas, which are a very small part of this. Out of £150 million of agricultural trade between the UK and Japan, only £1 million is covered by quotas. As mentioned, our producers will be able to take advantage of the unused quotas in that, and for products such as Stilton cheese, that will certainly be of benefit to its producers.
The state aid references in the agreement are de minimis and the kind of state aid arrangements which we regularly find in agreements of this sort. This in no way creates a new state aid regime for the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned GIs. Japan has agreed that we can put up to 70 further GIs in front of them and the tone of that discussion was very warm. Those GIs will go through a challenge process, but my right honourable friend the Trade Secretary and I are very confident that they, or at least the vast bulk of them, will be approved by the Japanese.
If noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite wish to see any further points of detail covered, I will be happy to deal with them separately. However, if noble Lords do not mind waiting for the next few weeks, until these agreements are out in the open, things will be very clear then, and I hope that will lead to people understanding and further welcoming a very important agreement.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I enthusiastically congratulate my noble friend the Minister and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on a successful conclusion to the UK-Japan trade deal. What could be more fitting than the first post-Brexit trade deal being between our two great enterprising and trading global and island nations? Who would be more than delighted than the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who instructed me 30 years ago as an intimidated junior Minister to “Forget Brussels—Japan should be our friend, ally and close trading partner for the future”? However, does my noble friend agree that it is now for British industry and commerce to take full advantage of this historic deal, showing the world what the best of British can deliver? How will this historic agreement progress the UK’s accession to the CPTPP?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her generous comments. I know that she is a great expert on Japan so it is particularly welcome that those comments came from her. She is of course right that we see this agreement as a gateway to the trans-Pacific partnership. Some 90% of global growth comes from beyond the EU, so both Japan and the wider Pacific region are vital for Britain’s future economy. We have no doubt that the finalisation of this Japan agreement will greatly help in that process, not least because Japan will hold the chair of the trans-Pacific partnership countries next year.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the signing of the UK-Japan trade deal is a breakthrough moment and is welcomed by business across the country. May I build on what the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, just said? How will the Government use this trade deal as a launch pad to secure accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership? Given that this deal supposedly has benefits beyond the EU-Japan trade deal, could the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that British companies, who may not have utilised EU FTAs as well as they could have, capitalise on this deal and ensure that the £15 billion of additional trade is realised?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. To answer the second part of his question, there is an obligation on the Department for International Trade to ensure that the benefits of these agreements—in due course, when they are signed and ratified—are well known throughout the UK. For example, the Japan agreement has huge benefits to our SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy. To put it in the nicest way, what would be the point of negotiating these agreements if we did not bring these benefits home to businesses throughout the United Kingdom? A lot is going on with the trans-Pacific partnership accession. Since July 2018, we have engaged with all 11 member countries and recently had a meeting between the Secretary of State and her counterpart in Mexico, attended by all heads of missions of the CPTPP. The tone of the meeting was warm. We are very much encouraged by the members of the CPTPP to pursue our contact with them, and I have no doubt that that contact will in due course lead to an accession request being made to the trans-Pacific partnership.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the trade deal with Japan will boost our GDP by only 0.07%? Will he tell the House how that compares with the economic cost of losing our free trade with the European Union, given that we still seem far from achieving a comprehensive trade agreement with it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. Of course, this has a smaller economic benefit than our arrangements with the EU, but I think it is right to gain economic benefit wherever we can. It would seem churlish not to want to pursue a Japan free trade agreement purely because it was smaller than a European free trade agreement. The full benefits of this agreement will be available to the House once the agreement and our impact assessment are published, and I ask the noble Baroness to wait until that happens and, perhaps, consider it then.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, we have been told that in this deal there will be new protections for the UK creative industries and that these protections have gone beyond the EU provisions that tackle online infringement of IP rights such as film and music piracy. The two major asks from the creative industries were that this deal with Japan introduced public performance rights, significantly benefiting the music industry, and a provision such as the one we already have in the UK that allows blocking of websites that provide access to illicit content. Have those two primary objectives been achieved and, if they were not, what confidence can the creative industries have that similar asks will be delivered in future negotiations?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I can indeed confirm that there are a number of advantages for the creative industries coming out of this enhanced continuity agreement, and the details of them will become apparent when the agreement and assessment are published in due course.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
My Lords, in welcoming this trade deal, I am particularly pleased that it removes trade barriers, delivering huge gains for the 8,000 UK SMEs exporting goods and services to Japan. I ask two questions. Overall, does the deal give better UK access than under the EU trade deal that was put into force in February last year? Following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, given Her Majesty’s Government's assessment that the trade deal could add 0.07% to UK GDP, what assessment has the department made of the effect of not agreeing a trade deal with the European Union?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Again, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. There is a specific SME chapter in this agreement. It goes further than the previous EU chapter and the whole intent of that chapter is to make it easier for our SMEs to trade with Japan. Further details will be available on that in due course. I have not seen any assessment in relation to the EU of the sort that he mentioned, and I dare say that it has not been thought necessary because of the overwhelming view in this country that we should leave the European Union, which indeed we did on 1 January this year.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. I am delighted that we have agreed a free trade agreement with Japan and strongly welcome the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend. As the Secretary of State said, the deal will
“unleash a new era of mutually beneficial economic co-operation with our great friend Japan”.
Against this background, does the Minister agree that it is a great disappointment that Hitachi decided yesterday to change the status of the Horizon nuclear power station project at Wylfa and Oldbury from suspended to cancelled? It is of some comfort that Hitachi has said that it will keep the lines of communication open with government and other key stakeholders regarding future options at both our sites. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government have sent an urgent message to the Government of Japan and Hitachi that they want strongly to work together to find a way of reviving this important project in the interests of all stakeholders?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments about the agreement and I am well aware of his great expertise in Japan. As the Minister for Investment, of course it is always a matter of great regret for me if a major company decides not to pursue an investment opportunity in the United Kingdom. My noble friend will realise that nuclear has a huge number of manifestations; these are very large decisions that companies will take. We have maintained contact with Hitachi throughout the process. I believe that this was a decision by the Hitachi board. I have no information in what circumstances it might choose to revisit that decision, but I will say that I have huge admiration for Hitachi. I have spoken to Hitachi at the most senior levels on a number of occasions, and we would always welcome any investment from Hitachi into the United Kingdom.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as noted in the register, but in particular my membership of the UK board of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, set up by Prime Minister Thatcher when the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was a Minister. The board met in its annual conference with Japanese colleagues last weekend and warmly welcomed the announcement of the trade deal: in particular the steps towards UK membership of the comprehensive trans-Pacific partnership.
It would also be appropriate today for us to welcome and congratulate Prime Minister Suga on his election yesterday as Prime Minister of Japan. He has a particularly strong commitment to UK-Japan relations and an understanding of the importance of the UK and Japan in maintaining an international rules-based system and that free and fair trade are at the heart of that. Can the Minister confirm that, when we see the details of this agreement and its implementation over the coming months, there will be nothing that will contradict our commitment to those international agreements on climate change and the sustainable development goals that see the UK and Japan committed to not only free trade but fair trade that helps preserve our planet and develop the global economy?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Lord is yet another example of the vast expertise that we have in this House on these matters and, because of his special insights into Japan, I welcome his commendation of this agreement. He is right to say that Japan and the UK have very similar attitudes to these matters: both of us look to a rules-based economy in world trade. I can confirm that the matters to which he referred have been rolled over from the EU agreement. The EU agreement had very strong provisions in relation to sustainability, climate and other matters, and he will see once the agreement is made available to the House that we have preserved the impact of those measures. I join the noble Lord’s congratulations of the new Japanese Prime Minister: I wish him a long and successful period in post.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, while naturally congratulating the Government on the progress with the Japan FTA, is it recognised that it is not in the interests of business to spend years negotiating free trade agreements for them to fail because one stakeholder group or another does not agree with them? Specifically, is a free trade agreement model for beyond the EU now being adopted by the UK in trade negotiations—with people speaking well of the Singaporean approach, for example? Can the Government demonstrate that they are being receptive to the principle of a UK-wide trade alliance that affords better scrutiny and transparency, building back better, and a trade model that ensures trade works for everyone, given some concern of limited evidence of inclusion?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. Before I answer it, I first apologise to him for misunderstanding an Oral Question that he asked me the other day. I have written to him correcting my misunderstanding.
The noble Viscount is completely right that one has to build a constituency for these agreements if they are to have the impact that we all desire. For that reason, we conducted a very extensive call for input between September and November last year on it, and published it along with our response in negotiation objectives. We held round tables across the country, and we have also set up various trade advisory groups with expertise drawn from a wide cross-section of the UK to advise us on the negotiations as they persist. The noble Viscount will understand that the lessons and advancements that you gain in one free trade agreement—subject, of course, to the trammels of negotiation—often get rolled forward into future free trade agreements. We believe that we are on the cutting edge of free trade agreements, and we are looking forward to those cutting edges appearing in the new free trade agreements that we intend to negotiate and ratify going forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and join in the congratulations on the achievement of this agreement in principle, and for which my noble friend the Minister deserves a certain amount of personal credit. I join, too, in the sending of good wishes to the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Yoshihide Suga. Could this deal herald an era of increased collaboration with Japan, not just on trade and business but across the whole range of security and defence co-ordination, such as the extension of the Five Eyes alliance in south-east Asia, and here at home on major infrastructure projects in railways, nuclear and other areas—replacing perhaps over-ubiquitous Chinese involvement with a more friendly Japanese presence? I join my noble friend Lord Trenchard in urging a reversal of the Hitachi withdrawal from our nuclear programme, which is a pity. Could steps be taken urgently to reverse that and maintain the programme?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Again, I thank my noble friend for his comments. He makes a very good point. I have always seen the signing of these agreements as having psychological and practical impacts that go far wider than the agreements themselves. The deep interaction that goes on in the negotiations gives rise to much better understanding between Governments. It awakens interest in a whole range of society in the countries being negotiated with. As he does, I see this as a harbinger of even closer relationships with Japan in a whole number of areas, including the important defence and security areas to which he refers.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I was interested to read in the Minister’s recent letter regarding this deal that there would be new protection for the more iconic UK goods such as Cornish pasties. How large does he judge the Japanese appetite for Cornish pasties to be? More importantly, what has the UK given to the Japanese that goes beyond what the EU deal gives? We have heard only of the potential— I stress, potential—upside of this deal. I should like to know what benefits go the other way.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. In relation to Cornish pasties, I have unwittingly watched television programmes from time to time that show the extraordinary variety of food that they eat in Japan. I am sure that against that background the Cornish pasty would be more than welcomed by Japanese consumers. In terms of the impact of this agreement, compared with the EU agreement, I ask her to await the publication of the agreement and of the report that we will produce setting out the differences in detail.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the agreement is welcome but, a few days ago, British and European motor manufacturers warned of £100 billion in losses over the next five years if there is no trade deal with the EU. That is on top of an estimated €100 billion cost from the Covid pandemic. Does the Minister understand the implications for our motor industry and for Japanese companies if there is no deal with the EU, and the consequent danger to British jobs that inevitably would follow?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are all aware of the vast amount of trade that we have with the European Union and the impact of that not just on our car industry but on other industries. That is why I am sure that he will join me in hoping that those negotiations reach a sensible conclusion. We believe that we have put pragmatic proposals to the EU, and we are hoping that it will shortly see that and agree an agreement with us.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this agreement. My question is simple. My noble friend stated that we will continue to be bound by the state aid arrangements that currently apply to the EU-Japan agreement. Why will we not agree to be bound by those same rules in our future relationship with the EU? What is so different between that relationship and our relationship with Japan?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. Perhaps I may repeat that the state aid provisions found in this free trade agreement are de minimis and in no way compare with what one might call the state aid environment that is the matter under discussion between the UK and the EU. Full details of this will be seen when the agreement is finally published.
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
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.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 17th September 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-III(Corrected) Third marshalled list for Report - (17 Sep 2020)
17:18 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 218 - Amendment 58 agreed.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it seems only right that, having spoken on the amendments in the fourth group, which would have restricted financial assistance to solely supporting production, I also respond to these amendments, which call for the opposite.
Amendments 43 and 44 come from different places but clearly demonstrate the importance of allowing a level of financial assistance for purposes other than production. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, when she said on Tuesday evening that she wishes to see a United Kingdom where there are no food banks. Their proliferation in both rural and urban areas in the last 10 years is a failure of government to address poverty issues in our communities. The devastating effects of the pandemic, combined with the disastrous rollout of universal credit, have pushed more and more people in this country into reliance on these services, which casts an indelible blight on one of the world’s richest economies.
I am particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 44, which raises the lack of progress—in public, at least—in relation to the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that my colleagues in both national and local government in Wales are particularly interested to know what happens next in the distribution of this promised funding, which replaces the generous EU grants of previous decades. I share my noble friend Lady Young’s fears about the shared prosperity fund being neither shared nor prosperous.
In relation to Amendment 44, does the Minister believe this point is covered by the government amendments in the group after next? If not, is there any form of contingency should a gap arise in the availability of development funds?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will take Amendments 43 and 44 together. I would like to reassure your Lordships that we recognise the importance of the issues that these amendments raise. Farmers and farming households make a valuable contribution to our national life, and we recognise that the needs of farming households may change as we move away from the common agricultural policy.
As set out in their manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. The manifesto also stated that it will, at a minimum, match the size of those funds in each nation, which was reiterated by the Chancellor in the last Budget. The final decisions about the quantum and design of the funding will take place after a cross-governmental spending review.
The Government have made a long-standing commitment to ensure that all policies are rural proofed—that is, ensuring that policy outcomes work in rural areas. This includes the development and delivery of the UK shared prosperity fund, on which Defra and MHCLG officials are working closely. In advance of the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund, £60 million of funding will continue to flow to rural businesses via the final tranche of the growth programme, which the RPA is currently assessing.
The fund will play a vital role in supporting rural and coastal communities in recovery and renewal from Covid-19, and our expectation is that the growth programme and LEADER elements of EAFRD will be a component of the fund. This was set out in a letter from the Defra Secretary of State to the chair of the EFRA Select Committee on 7 September. Defra officials continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which leads on the fund’s development, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and particularly the challenges faced by rural communities, as well as the opportunities that I believe rural communities have. We have been in contact with MHCLG Ministers and I can assure your Lordships that MHCLG recognises the importance of these considerations.
I fully recognise the importance of reassuring rural communities and farming households about the future of local growth funding. The Government will look to set out their national approach to local economic recovery and devolution through a White Paper expected in the autumn. We firmly believe that the best way to make progress is to continue to work collaboratively at local and national level. The MHCLG has established an economic recovery working group, which meets regularly, bringing together a range of local growth partners to work on emerging themes and concerns across the country, including those relevant to rural areas. This includes representatives from rural local enterprise partnerships and local authorities.
If new socioeconomic support programmes were to be operated under Clause 16, they would have to operate under broadly the same framework dictated by the existing CAP. Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to modify or repeal retained EU legislation relating to rural development in England. This clause will not be used to introduce any new schemes, as they will be covered under Clause 1.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl will accept my confirmation that the UK shared prosperity fund will provide great opportunities for growth and investment in rural communities and will include the successor for the growth programme and LEADER elements of EAFRD. I believe this is a cause we all share and hope that, on that basis, given the explanation of the work we are undertaking between the two departments and the imperative of rural proofing, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received a request to ask a question from the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
Following up the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I ask the Minister to confirm whether he considers that government Amendments 45 and 46 might address the issues raised by Amendment 44. It is important to have that clarified. I thought that they did as I read them in preparation for today. That would certainly alleviate some of the concerns behind Amendment 44.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, when we come to the amendments in my name I will explain that they intend to, and will, provide for the smooth running of existing schemes under the EU programmes, not only so that they can continue to work well but so that people due to receive funds from them can do so. The amendments we have discussed were about additional and beyond, but my amendments on retained EU law are technical amendments to ensure that the existing programme under the existing schemes can work effectively.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate, albeit that it has taken place over two days—three, if you add in yesterday. I also thank the Minister for his carefully worded reply. I know that he personally understands the problems I have described and the importance of the wider rural economy, not only to farmers and farming households but to those who live on the edge in our countryside and whose poverty remains largely ignored by government.
Meanwhile, I reassure my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it was never my intention to take money away from ELMS, or even the agricultural budget—or perhaps, as she might have put it more figuratively, I had no wish to hang another bauble on to the ELMS Christmas tree. I was trying to make the “rural affairs” bit of Defra a bit more of a reality, as recommended by two Select Committee reports of this House in recent years. However, as hinted at by my very old friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, it is probably best to keep rural communities alongside all other communities and therefore firmly within the ministry for communities, now known as MHCLG.
The Minister has indeed given me some comfort in what he said about the shared prosperity fund, although I realise that nothing is certain before the comprehensive spending review. It might have been good to hear some indication as to when we will get any tangible details about the shared prosperity fund, but I suppose, with our economy currently on a precipice of uncertainty owing to the fallout from Covid and the ongoing doubts about the Brexit deal, it would have been asking too much to expect more detail when neither the Treasury nor MHCLG have any firm grip on where they are going.
Anyway, I will stop there. In the light of the Minister’s undertakings on the Floor of the House about a future rural component of a shared prosperity fund, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“( ) amending Annex IV of the Regulation (indicative list) to cover broadband connectivity and digital literacy.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 44A. In doing so, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her support. The amendment is incredibly straight- forward. It would enable farmers and all those in our rural communities to have the broadband connectivity and digital skills to operate confidently in that space.
As we have seen through the Covid crisis, our farmers have been on the front line in so many ways, filling in for long supply chains that should, in many ways, probably not have been that length in the first place. Our farmers have absolutely stepped up. Although they have been on the front line, they have often found it impossible to be online. The National Farmers Union broadband survey last year showed that 15% of those in our rural communities had no indoor broadband connectivity at all, and a shocking 36% could say they had only adequate broadband cover.
As we have also seen through the Covid crisis, it is not just the economic imperative to be online; there is a social and psychological dimension. Not only have our farmers not been able to run their businesses efficiently and effectively, the social dimension of keeping in contact with friends and family, and the psychological difficulties often felt with the remoteness of rural communities, have been brought home only too strongly through the Covid crisis.
Amendment 44A would put an end to this parlous position when it comes to broadband, digital connectivity and digital literacy. Earlier this year, in response to the EFRA Select Committee inquiry on broadband conductivity, the Government said that they had in principle put £5 billion in and would look at a shared rural broadband network. It was talked of in principle and intention. How do the Government intend to put that into will?
It is not just good soil and good farm management that produce our fabulous food, fruit and horticulture products but having high-speed broadband and the confidence and digital skills to operate in cyberspace as much as across the fields of the United Kingdom. We must demonstrate that we are all in this together. That means providing a level of broadband and digital literacy for all our farmers and all those in our rural communities. Does my noble friend the Minister agree? If the Government are not up for supporting the amendment, will she say how they intend to get the best out of all our rural communities, not least our farmers, to deliver on the levelling-up agenda and to drive economic, social and psychological benefits for our farmers and all those across our rural communities? I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 44A and I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for tabling it. I pay tribute to his expertise, knowledge and sheer perseverance in this area. It gives me the opportunity to draw further attention to how woeful broadband and wi-fi connections are in many parts of rural England because places are simply too far—more than a mile—from the local box.
Also, many will not appreciate the issue with the mobile phone signal. I look directly at the Woolsack; I am sure this problem is not unfamiliar in Scotland. In the summer in parts of North Yorkshire where the red phone boxes have been removed it is inherently dangerous if you do not have access to a landline. It is incredibly important that we should have a good mobile phone service. I had hoped we would be able to piggyback on the police service, but apparently we are not able to do that for security reasons. North Yorkshire Police made a massive investment to make sure they could apprehend criminals by getting reinforcements where that was the case.
I take this opportunity to bring to my noble friend the Minister’s attention how in many areas of the dales and the moorlands of the north of England there is both poor mobile phone conductivity and woeful broadband—it is persistently bad. I welcome the amendment and the extra spending the Government have announced to be spent in areas such as North Yorkshire, recognising that this is the case.
We went into the last election and the previous one with a commitment to a universal service of “x megabytes by x date”. That date keeps moving. Can I press my noble friend on what date we will have universal service and on whether the additional funds that the Government can find can be spent on the 3% of the population who are hardest to reach? It grieves me greatly to be told that 97% of the population will have universal access to broadband but not the 3% of us who happen to live in rural areas. I want to ensure that we can reverse the priorities and spend the additional money, and any other money that is available, in these hardest-to-reach areas.
As my noble friend Lord Holmes set out, it is an unacceptable situation that, in the 21st century, children who are sent home from school because one of their class has Covid-19, and who are diligently trying to do their work at home, prevent farmers going online to fill in forms. I hope that the Minister uses her good offices to correct that situation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment. I suspect that other Peers did not realise that this amendment had been re-tabled, hence the short speakers’ list.
During the Covid-19 lockdown it became painfully apparent how inadequate the broadband system is, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said. It is vital that all areas of the country have good, fast and resilient broadband, especially those in our agricultural sector. Many Peers attempting to take part in virtual proceedings have struggled with connections suddenly dropping off or being unable to log on in the first place. In 2018, the average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that of major conurbations. Can the Minister say whether this has improved in the intervening two years?
In the aftermath of the Huawei fiasco, the Secretary of State was clear on the consequences of the Government’s decision to pull out. Operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out, at the same time bearing the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Can the Minister say whether, in the intervening months since this decision was made, the Government have now reconsidered providing compensation to providers and consumers? The change in provider will delay the rollout of 5G by two to three years. Rural communities are already extremely disadvantaged in their connectivity. Many rural businesses have had to relocate to more urban areas to continue operating. Those in the farming community, like others, must fill in all their forms online. This now appears to be the Government’s only way of communicating with those residents to whom they attempt to provide services.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, during the lockdown children were dependent on Zoom connectivity to take part in sessions with their teachers. Although this meant that they received some tuition, for many the connection was so poor that it was hopeless. If the Government are true to their word in wanting to support rural communities, it is vital that broadband connectivity and digital literacy are taken seriously. This is not a “nice to have” for the agricultural industry, but an “absolute must”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for once again raising this important issue. He is right to draw attention to the alarming lack of progress in rolling out broadband to rural areas. This is hindering the ability of British farmers to do their job, and it will become even more of a crisis when new farming techniques requiring regular digital applications become mainstream.
The latest Ofcom report identifies 677,000 homes and offices without decent broadband, but the vast majority—496,000—are in rural areas. Ofcom also reports that many rural areas are left with patchy and unreliable mobile reception, with less than half having 4G coverage. Sadly, it is all too common to hear stories of farmers driving around the countryside to try to get a signal to carry out even the basic business connections that they need for their work.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for tabling this amendment which seeks to use the Agriculture Bill to provide for new socioeconomic support programmes to help fund improved broadband connectivity and digital skills in rural areas beyond the end of the current rural development programme. He is indeed a champion of addressing the very real digital divide.
I reassure this House that we recognise the importance of the issue that this amendment raises. This Government are determined to connect every home and business to the fastest broadband speeds available. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said, access to digital is key to helping all rural communities build resilient modern businesses, as well as supporting them in their daily lives. Indeed, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown the integral role that digital connectivity plays in our daily lives, economically, socially and in continuing to deliver essential public services. The Government are investing record amounts to level up digital infrastructure across the UK. We are already connecting some of the hardest-to-reach places in the country, including through the superfast broadband programme and the £200 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. The Government want nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable broadband as soon as possible.
We have also announced £5 billion of public funding—not just in principle; it has been announced—to close the digital divide and ensure that rural areas are not left behind. Only last week, we announced that more than £22 million of additional funding is being invested in the UK Government’s broadband voucher scheme, which subsidises the cost of building gigabit-capable broadband networks to hard-to-reach areas. The Government are working with mobile network operators to deliver mobile connectivity improvements through a shared rural network. Much is therefore already in place to improve connectivity in rural areas, and we have already started the 5G rollout.
We also recognise the importance of improving digital skills in rural areas. There is a wide number of initiatives to support this, including the digital skills partnership launched by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in 2017, to bring together organisations from across the public, private and charity sectors to work together to close the digital skills gap at a local level. Although the current rural development programme allows for support for broadband and digital skills, these wider government initiatives are the key funding mechanisms for broadband connectivity and digital skills. However, we are also committed to supporting rural communities through post-EU exit funding and the UK shared prosperity fund, which will play a vital role in supporting rural and coastal communities in recovery and renewal from Covid-19.
As set out in the manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. Defra officials are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which leads on its development, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and the challenges faced by rural communities. The final decisions about the quantum and design of future socioeconomic funding will take place after the upcoming cross-government spending review.
With these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received no requests for further short questions. Accordingly, I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
I thank the Minister for her full and thorough response, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. All I would add at this stage is that the Minister consider further whether there is anything in this space which could be considered for Third Reading. The Agriculture Bill provides a real opportunity to focus on such an important bedrock—as important as the soil will be the fibre which enables food to grow, economic development and the social and psychological well-being for farmers all across our rural communities. So I urge her to consider whether there is anything that can be brought at Third Reading. Also, will she consider convening a round table with colleagues from DCMS to see whether there are any further specific support ideas that can be deployed in this space? I once again thank noble Lords who participated and the Minister for her full response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 45. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 45
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance
(1) The appropriate national authority may give financial assistance to—(a) a person who is a party to an agreement entered into in accordance with any of the following provisions—(i) the Rural Development Regulation,(ii) any legacy rural development provision, or(iii) Articles 32 to 35 of the Common Provisions Regulation (community-led local development), so far as relating to support for rural development,where the agreement has not concluded, or(b) a producer organisation implementing an operational programme approved in accordance with the producer organisations aid provisions.(2) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to England;(b) the Welsh Ministers, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Wales;(c) DAERA, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Northern Ireland;“the Common Provisions Regulation” means Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund etc;“legacy rural development provision” means any EU regulation, EU decision or EU tertiary legislation relating to support for rural development that preceded the Rural Development Regulation (including—(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development,(b) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development,(c) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture,(d) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and(e) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1096/88 of 25 April 1988 establishing a Community scheme to encourage the cessation of farming);“the producer organisations aid provisions” means—(a) Articles 32 to 38 of the CMO Regulation, which make provision about aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations (“producer organisations aid”),(b) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 of 13 March 2017 supplementing the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors, and(c) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/892 of 13 March 2017 laying down rules for the application of the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors;“the Rural Development Regulation” means Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers and DAERA to continue to make payments where agreements and programmes are currently supported under an EU programme relating to rural development or fruit and vegetable producers.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 46, 107, 110, 111, 122, 123, 124 and 125 in my name. Following new legal advice from the European Law Group and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, these technical amendments are being tabled to put beyond doubt that a body of retained EU law relating to multi-annual programmes under rural development and common market organisation will be created at the end of the implementation period, where this is not created automatically by virtue of the interrelationship between the withdrawal agreement and European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Clauses 14, 15, 16 and their equivalents in the Welsh and Northern Irish schedules all rely on a body of retained EU law being created on implementation period completion day that can then be applied in domestic law and modified as required. Article 138 of the withdrawal agreement means that rural development programmes and some parts of the common market organisation will continue to operate under EU law after the end of the implementation period. However, Section 3(2)(a)(bi) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 prevents EU legislation that is directly applicable in domestic law as a result of the withdrawal agreement under Section 7A of EWA also becoming retained EU law. I am sorry about this, but I want to go into some technical detail so that it is very clear to your Lordships.
This created a legal doubt as to whether the legislation governing the relevant rural development and CMO aid schemes would roll over to become retained EU law. These amendments therefore put that question beyond doubt by ensuring that a body of retained EU law relating to multi-annual agreements and programmes in rural development and CMO will be created at the end of the implementation period. They also provide a payment power to continue paying existing holders of agreements or programmes once the EU funding ends. This power to pay does not depend on modifying retained EU law. Such a power is necessary to ensure domestic funding can step in when existing EU budgets are exhausted in circumstances where these agreements and programmes continue to be regulated under the withdrawal agreement.
As I said, these are technical amendments required to ensure the Bill works as it was originally intended, so that modifications may be made to existing programmes where appropriate, simplifications and improvements may be made to schemes and scheme beneficiaries can continue to receive payments. These government amendments are supported by, and made with the approval of, the devolved Administrations. That is most important and the schedules for Wales and Northern Ireland are at their request. I also emphasise that there is no change to the policy intent of Clauses 14, 15 and 16. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Then we shall move on to the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I appreciate that I may be in a tiny minority in this House. I do not intend to press anything to a vote and I fully understand the detail and the logic of these amendments. But I heard the Minister refer on a number of occasions to manifesto policy at the election and, having in another life represented a 500 square mile rural consistency, I have taken the opportunity to see whether there was any misprint or printing problem in the election leaflets, because I saw or heard nowhere a proposal for retained EU legislation. It illustrates a rather different approach, albeit by consensus across political parties, when it comes to agriculture as opposed to, say, manufacturing industry and other areas of state aid. Of course, this is still one of the two unresolved issues for negotiation in advance of the forthcoming EU Council, although the detail on state aid has been less clear.
I do not recall anyone ever telling me when they voted to leave the European Union that they were voting to keep the common agricultural policy, albeit with a different name, or to retain through legislation, funding and priority the same systems, or indeed that there would be a seven-year transition period. Actually, I think I would sooner have supported leaving the European Union. Transition periods, even ones of seven years, may be very sensible. I am happy to have voted for a seven-year transition period, but I do not think that I am in a minority across the country in being wary of us adopting some elements of what the EU created and what some of us would regard as the worst elements, because the common agricultural policy was the most incoherent form of state aid, the most invalid and antiquated, and one that did not serve the future interests of this country. So I put it very politely to the Minister that I am not suggesting that he should be circulating leaflets saying that the Government are proudly retaining EU legislation and what goes with that in terms of funding, but there needs more thought in debate, particularly in relation to state aid, that what might serve one community might well serve another community. I am quite sure that steel communities, which are part of rural communities in many parts of this country, would be keen to hear similar principles being applied on an ongoing basis.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I have only two questions for my noble friend.
It concerns me that these amendments have been tabled at this stage. Why did we not know about this problem before? Why has it only just come to light on Report? It worries me that we might be letting other issues through.
Are there any other related programmes affecting other industries where primary legislation might be needed to cover the gap, as my noble friend is covering it for agriculture in this instance?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has tabled this group of amendments to clarify the legal situation in what seems a potentially vexatious area.
I want to place on record how dependent many heavily deprived rural areas have become on parts of the European rural development fund. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I want to place on record a bid to make sure that any offerings from the shared prosperity fund will include a heavy element of rural development and grants.
I also want to put a question to my noble friend the Minister. What will the natural end of these schemes be? I assume that they will be phased out. If the schemes are rolled over in the specific circumstances to which my noble friend referred, will they reach the natural end of their life by 2023? Will the LEADER programme and the other programmes that fall under the current rural development schemes—they have obviously had much funding from both EU and domestic funds—continue to benefit from the new ELM schemes? Is that the Government’s intention?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this group of government amendments relates to the rural development regulation and would allow the devolved Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland to operate once the EU programmes of financial assistance have ceased. It will be extremely important for the rural development regulation to continue and for fruit and vegetable producers to be supported.
As I understand it, the amendments would, under the withdrawal agreement, roll over both retained EU legislation to cover existing programmes and a large number of programmes on which the farmers of the devolved Administrations rely. They cover apiculture in Northern Ireland and Wales, and some consequential amendments cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland only; another includes Scotland as well.
As the Minister indicated, the devolved Administrations are in agreement with these amendments. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on state aid and have some sympathy with them.
I generally welcome this large group of amendments. They give a lot of technical detail, as the Minister said. I hope that this will mean that slightly fewer statutory instruments follow on from this Bill. I also note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about whether this covers a gap and whether we should have known about it beforehand. Generally, however, I support all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome these technical government amendments, aimed at providing greater certainty over the state of legacy funding schemes and EU-derived legislation.
I appreciated the Minister’s technical explanations in his introduction. However, I would appreciate it if he could explain why these amendments have been tabled only at this late stage of consideration, given that the points they cover will have been on the department’s radar for quite some time.
A number of EU exit statutory instruments have been found to contain errors that have required correction by later instruments. Is there a mechanism for changes to be made to these provisions should any problems arise? We have spent a summer of U-turns, with a plethora of problems arising across government in a range of offices and service delivery and systems simply not working. Should it not be the case with good governance that problems are dealt with before they become a problem? I urge the Minister to use his expertise in these matters to look at these mechanisms again and ensure that changes can be made to the legislation in good time in this House.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their general welcome for the amendments, although I want to deal with some of the points made. I will be the first to say that the perfect form is something we all aspire to, but I am afraid that we are all human.
I want to explain this matter precisely because my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, made absolutely fair points. The advice from the European Law Group about retained EU law changed recently, prompting Defra lawyers to want to put beyond doubt that we can continue to pay beneficiaries under existing CAP schemes.
I would not blame the noble Lord, Lord Mann, if he was not listening to our earlier deliberations, but I explained on Tuesday that one reason why the Government were keen to start the transition is that we are the first to say that we do not think that the CAP has been directed properly or that it has given value for money on all the things we want to do. I am happy to send that reference to the noble Lord; we are clear that that is why we want a transition and want to start now. As for existing programmes, I also say to the noble Lord that this is about where people have entered into existing programmes in good faith. We want them to have the ability for that to continue, as the programmes were forces for good, and for those applicants to receive the funds that they thought were the case.
On a point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I say to noble Lords that part of what we will want to do in supporting the farming sector but also rural communities is that there will be financial assistance through Clause 1 and other clauses in this Bill for farmers. I emphasise that the whole essence of the UK shared prosperity fund is that “shared” means across the country. I assure your Lordships that this is the case everywhere I go; it means to former mining communities, rural, coastal, suburban and urban. It is a shared prosperity fund, and it will not be successful unless it is precisely that. I absolutely understand that it is important that all communities—certainly those that have been going through very difficult times over quite a long period of time and particularly in those areas where industrial change has been so acute—are included.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their welcome for these measures. As I say, I have had to bring them forward because there has been a change of advice. As for my noble friend Lord Caithness’s question about whether there are other sectors, I try to master this brief but mastering other departments’ briefs might be a little difficult. However, I will send that message back.
As for the length of the programme—the “natural end” that my noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke of—I cannot say precisely for each and every scheme, but we have said that we will fulfil our promise to pay for those schemes that are in existence through domestic funding for the length of those particular schemes. I cannot comment on each and every scheme, but we say that we will back those schemes that have been entered into in good faith.
With those explanations—I will look at Hansard in case there are more technical details—I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Retained direct EU legislation
(1) To the extent that any legislation within subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) would (in the absence of this subsection) be prevented from becoming retained direct EU legislation on IP completion day by section 3(2)(a)(bi) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 3 of that Act is to have effect in relation to that legislation as if subsection (2)(a)(bi) of that section were omitted.(2) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development,(b) Regulation (EU) No 1310/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down certain transitional provisions on support for rural development,(c) any EU regulation, EU decision or EU tertiary legislation relating to support for rural development that preceded the Rural Development Regulation (including—(i) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development,(ii) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development,(iii) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture,(iv) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and(v) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1096/88 of 25 April 1988 establishing a Community scheme to encourage the cessation of farming),(d) any legislation made under the legislation in paragraphs (a) to (c), and(e) so far as relating to support for rural development—(i) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund etc, and(ii) any legislation made under that Regulation.(3) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Articles 32 to 38 of the CMO Regulation, which make provision about aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations (“producer organisations aid”),(b) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 of 13 March 2017 supplementing the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors, and(c) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/892 of 13 March 2017 laying down rules for the application of the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors.(4) The legislation within this subsection is— (a) Articles 55 to 57 of the CMO Regulation (provision about aid for apiculture), and(b) any legislation made under that legislation.(5) The legislation within this subsection is the following, so far as it relates to producer organisations aid, apiculture or support for rural development—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy,(b) any legislation made under that regulation, and(c) any EU regulation, EU decision or EU tertiary legislation relating to the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy that preceded Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (including—(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures,(ii) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, and(iii) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that legislation relating to support for rural development, fruit and vegetable producer organisations and apiculture that has direct effect under the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be retained direct EU legislation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 49. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may only speak once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 17: Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security
Amendment 49
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the first report under Clause 17 to be prepared on or before the relevant day. The definition of relevant day is inserted by a related Government amendment to mean the last day before 25 December 2021 which is a sitting day for both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 51, 54 and 56 in my name.
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on this topic in Committee. I gave the matter considerable thought following your Lordships’ remarks then. The importance placed by noble Lords on the food security reports is shared by the Government. In Clause 17, the Government are making an important new commitment to analyse relevant statistical data by publishing a regular report on the crucial subject of food security. The food security report will be a significant body of work that will use a set of core measurements and indicators for each of the key topic areas. This will include a range of areas covering both global and domestic food security including, although not limited to, supply sources of feed, resilience in the supply chain and household food security.
As I set out in Committee, the Government have no intention of waiting until the end of that five-year period to publish the first report. I and other Ministers have listened closely to the points made by your Lordships and have been persuaded that there is merit in changing the frequency of reporting in the Bill to require reports to be published at least every three years. We have also been persuaded to include a duty in the Bill that the first report be published on or before the last sitting day before 25 December 2021 for both Houses of Parliament. This first report will include an analysis of statistical data relating to the effects of coronavirus on food security in the UK. The amendments that I have tabled reflect the importance of this new duty while maintaining the great benefit of allowing reports to cover long-term trends. I hope your Lordships will recognise that the Government have heard the feeling in this House on this issue and have acted. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 50 in my name. Attentive colleagues will have noticed that our Amendment 50 is very similar to the amendments now being proposed by the Minister. We are very pleased that the Government listened to our arguments on this issue in Committee. At that time we argued that, particularly in the light of the Covid experience, regular reporting on food security was essential. We know that when we leave the EU transition period there will be an even greater need for a focus on the reliability of the food supply chain and our capacity to guarantee that the nation will be fed, so regular reporting to Parliament is essential. It is good to see the Government taking this issue seriously.
I know there are other noble Lords who believe that the report should be published more frequently. We think this is a fine judgment, but on further reflection we continue to believe that a first report to Parliament within 12 months followed by every three years thereafter is the right balance. It would make the three-year report a substantial intervention rather than an annual routine occurrence, it would enable us to have a significant debate on the consequences of any shortfall, and it would ensure that the report stood out from the voluminous annual reporting cycle that Governments are required to issue without any real analysis. So we support the Government’s amendments, and I hope they show the true intent of the Government to make the food security reports a major contribution to future policy direction in this sector.
I also welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who rightly raises the issue of “household food insecurity”. It is clearly important that any analysis of food security should look at the national picture but also at issues of distribution, equal access and food poverty of the individual. This is an issue that we hope to address in our national food strategy amendment, which we will come to later.
The amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, rightly flags up that measures on food security are meaningless unless there are also reliable sources of livestock feed available either domestically or through being imported. The amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans makes an important case for any food security report not just to be aesthetic analysis but to be a document with objectives and targets for the future.
All these amendments are making an important contribution to the shape and substance of any future food security reports, and I hope the Minister is able to take them on board in his response. In the meantime, we thank the Minister for his helpful amendments. We hope this is a sign of the seriousness that the Government will assign to these reports and any action that will need to follow.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Jones, there is a great deal of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on the importance of the Government’s amendments. The only point that I would make in strong support of what my noble friend has said is that food security is such a vital issue and that things can, through unforeseen circumstances, change so rapidly that, if we are to make what we are attempting to achieve through these amendments effective, shorter time spans are not only necessary but absolutely essential. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, both of which I have attached my name to.
I start with Amendment 53, which concerns adding household food insecurity to the matters on which the Government must report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, noted earlier, adding to our remarks last week, although we can treasure the contribution of people who donate to food banks and the volunteers who work in them, food banks themselves are a national disgrace. No one should have to rely on charity to feed themselves. The government reports on food security and insecurity should also include not just what food is available but whether everyone has access to a full, healthy diet, and whether it is available to them financially, physically—I am thinking of things such as food deserts—and practically. On that latter point, do they have the cooking facilities and the energy they need to prepare the food?
On Amendments 50 and 52, I agree with an earlier comment that the question of whether the Government should report every three or five years is finely balanced. I welcome the fact that the Government agree that reporting every five years is not nearly often enough. I think that there is an argument to be made either way, although I can probably live with a three-year reporting cycle, and I hope it is something that we can get a real national focus on. Food security is one of the central roles of government—surely making sure that people do not starve has to be right up there.
I did a little survey of the news this morning, looking at what is happening around the world. I discovered that the Chinese corn crop is expected to fall by 10 million tonnes—nearly 4%—from the latest government estimates after heavy wind and rain toppled crops in major production areas in the north-east corn belt. That follows the events in America in August, when, across Iowa, 14 million acres of insured crops were damaged by what is known as the derecho—that is, conditions very similar to those experienced in China. I do not need to rehearse for your Lordships’ House just how difficult a year this has been for our farmers. The idea that we can simply rely on buying food on the global market is a very dangerous approach for all kinds of reasons, but food security has to be top of the list.
Just this morning I was at a Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum policy conference on the future of agricultural land use. There was a very interesting contribution from Adrian Aebi of the Federal Office for Agriculture at the Swiss embassy in the United Kingdom. I was interested to learn that Article 104 of the Swiss constitution provides that the agricultural sector shall sustainably make
“an essential contribution towards … the reliable provision”
of food and
“the conservation of natural resources and the upkeep of the countryside”.
Mr Aebi also informed us that the Swiss Government have clear targets for local food supplies and for improving diets, and they have expressed their intention of pushing towards a more plant-based diet for both environmental and human health reasons. I do not have the information to judge exactly where Switzerland might sit on a global league table of food policy but the UK clearly needs to do better. The Government keep saying that they want to be world leading in these areas, so we need to see clear targets from them on such things, particularly in relation to England.
It is interesting that reference to this issue is made in the Swiss constitution. Of course, we have our unwritten, accidentally accreted over many centuries, constitution that lacks such provisions. That is perhaps something to think about for the future.
I welcome the progress that we have made in this area. We have moved forward but we need to keep focusing on food security as a crucial part of government policy. Seeing all the work that is happening in your Lordships’ House on this issue, I am confident that certainly we will keep working on it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for recognising that the House was very uneasy about there being a five-year period between the initial and subsequent reports. If I understood him correctly when he spoke to this group of amendments, the Government will report at least every three years. However, if, for example, there is a shortage of food supply at home and a big fall in our self-sufficiency from the current 60%, and if, at any time after 1 January, there is any threat to the level of food imports into this country that could cause a future shock or crisis, I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to review this matter and report more frequently than every three years. However, I thank him for listening to the House and to those of us who raised these concerns at Second Reading and in Committee.
I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 57, to which I have appended my name. It would require the Government to specify food security targets and implement actions to ensure that those targets were met. I hope that my noble friend would in the course of natural events seek to do that in the reports to which he has referred.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and I thank noble Lords who spoke in Committee about the need for more frequent reporting on food security. It is important that we have more frequent reports on food security. Only this year, the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, published a reported entitled Hungry for Change. It detailed the need for regular reporting and to address inadequate supply chains, which will be exacerbated not only by Brexit but by Covid. We need to address the effect of this global pandemic on the current levels of food insecurity in the UK, the developing world and other areas on which we rely for food.
I also support Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which I regard as probably an interim measure. I was happy to put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She and I well recall our time as members of the EFRA Select Committee in the other place, of which she was chair. The committee found that levels of food security and food insecurity were equally inadequate and required to be addressed. Perhaps now we are getting to grips with this issue, which will have been made worse by Covid and Brexit.
On food provenance, it is important that we know where our food comes from and that it is properly controlled. People should receive an adequate supply of food and should no longer have to resort to food banks. However, the reality is that many people rely on them. We have to try to ensure that people have access to the right benefits, and in that regard there should be a review of the whole universal credit system.
Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to address the issue of food security? It is a global issue as well as a domestic one. We need specific food security targets to be set on an annual basis, although I welcome the move to a three-yearly basis. Relevant reporting to Parliament is also required every three years, although I would also prefer to see that on an annual basis. We have to see what is actually going on, and when we have witnessed that, surely Parliament, working with the Government, can take appropriate action to address deficits in both food security and insecurity.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have supported my amendments and also the Minister, who has been listening long and hard to all of this. I feel that the Government have come a long way on the issue.
Household food insecurity is very different from national food security and we should measure both. I should say that measurements of household food insecurity are already being taken. The Family Resources Survey does this as a part of its work every year while the Food Standards Agency collects data on household food insecurity as part of the Food and You survey. These measurements are being made and while I realise that taking them every year seems like a lot, if you are hungry, three years will seem like an extremely long time.
Quite frankly, if you are poor and cannot afford to buy food, it does not matter to you if the supermarkets of Chelsea and Westminster happen to be well stocked for those who have enough money in their pocket. The Trussell Trust produced a report this week saying that by Christmas, it reckons that 670,000 more people will be coming to food banks as the furlough scheme is lifted. We have a great deal of household insecurity, which can lead to incalculable damage.
I thank the Government for this amendment and I support it, but I would like to keep the channels open. People cannot wait three years to find out whether the food system is going to be made better for them and their children.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and then to Amendment 57 tabled in my name. I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has listened closely to the House and brought forward amendments. This is immensely helpful. On Tuesday, several noble Lords rehearsed the reasons we need the highest levels of food security possible, and I will not repeat those arguments now. Although I agree that this is a difficult call, my personal view is that annual reporting would be preferable. Nevertheless, I shall listen carefully to the arguments as they are made.
On Amendment 57, while I welcome the Government’s commitment to produce a regular report on food security, it is vital that this is a means by which Her Majesty’s Government can express their policy targets and mechanisms to address any issues in this area. Currently, the provisions in the Bill envisage a fairly static output that merely reports on the current food security situation rather than a more dynamic report which seeks to set out an agenda for change where change is required. There is little point in the Government merely producing a report of which Parliament is required to take note; we need a platform for evaluation, repurposing and, of course, to inform future actions. At the very least, it will be essential to ensure that food security targets are both met and monitored. Where the report indicates that there are issues with aspects of our food and environmental security, the Government must come forward with their plans and policies for addressing those shortcomings.
This amendment would provide the necessary architecture for the Government to take the matter forward and ensure responsibly that the UK is adequately prepared for any future uncertainties. It would be a failure if, having taken the time to consider the importance of having a food security report, we do not also ensure that it is used to inform changes in policy and procedures. A statutory requirement for Her Majesty’s Government is needed to address these issues and it needs to be included in this Bill.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which recommends that government reports on food security should take into account measures of household food insecurity. As the noble Baroness has just pointed out, it would be anomalous if in isolation, on its own, some assessment of national food security were to have a good reading while at the same time, United Kingdom household food security might have a poor one. That inconsistency would be prevented by this amendment, which requires the Government’s report to consider household food insecurity alongside food security.
I am also in favour of Amendment 57, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on specifying food security targets so that thereafter, actions can be taken to ensure that they are met. The prescription within the amendment is irrefutable, for how can we proceed efficiently and competently if we do not state and specify targets in the first place? If we do not use targets at all, how then can we properly calculate any future level of progress and judge whether we have acted correctly to attain certain levels of food security in the United Kingdom?
I come now to Amendment 55 in my name on supply sources of livestock feed as an input to food production and the reliance on the food supply chain. As I pointed out in Committee, there are three major disadvantages from imported animal feed. First, these imports undermine the country’s food security. Secondly, there is the carbon footprint arising from their production and transport. Thirdly, there is the environmental damage which their cultivation causes in certain countries, notably soya beans in Brazil and Argentina.
In 2019, imports of animal feed broke a record by exceeding £2.4 billion. The feed is mostly soya or intensively produced grain being grown by companies that are responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. If we use feed from land that should be forest, we are adding to the destruction of an ecosystem which sustains our climate and biodiversity. Regarding the resolve to increase our own homegrown animal feed supply as much as possible, my noble friend the Minister has already referred to the Pulse Crop Genetic Improvement Network, a project due to end in 2023. Its aims include the production of better quality animal feed and to discover alternatives to imported soya beans. Based on the existing level of research, can my noble friend say what targets can already be set both for the reduction of imported feed and an increase in homegrown feed?
Meanwhile, United Kingdom importers could be encouraged to buy feed from countries that demonstrate similar environmental standards to those of the United Kingdom, and perhaps guided in this endeavour by international certification bodies. Does my noble friend agree with that? If so, what steps might the Government now take to buy from certain countries rather than others and to make use of international certification bodies?
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. What we are talking about is very important and it is heading in the right direction but the approach should be much more about management by exception, as they say in the private sector. Crucial targets and standards should be set and there should be reporting when things go wrong. It should not be a matter of waiting a year, two years or three years. There should be indicators and then the Government should report to Parliament when things are going wrong. It means doing that at the earliest time and saying what is being done to put it right. That is slightly similar to how, in the private sector, companies are required to give profit warnings if the track they indicate they are following is being deviated from. There should be a much more dynamic approach to this question. I would like to see standards set and reports produced when the standards are not being met.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward his amendments on this issue. I would still prefer the reporting to be annual, but he has made a move towards us, and I will not dispute his suggestion of three years.
My noble friend Lord Dundee made some interesting and useful points about animal feeds and the damage caused when growing them in other countries, particularly in Brazil, as we have seen recently on television in the Attenborough programme. It is a matter of concern.
More generally, I am concerned about getting too detailed about food security. We must remember that a great many British farmers rely on exports, and if we are restrictive on our imports, it is going to be very easy for other countries to be restrictive on our exports. As the situation stands, I fear the EU could be extremely difficult about our lamb and beef exports in the not-too-distant future. That would have a profound effect on farming, and it is something my noble friend will have to be aware of. Overall, we are not doing too badly on producing our own food. We import an awful lot we do not need for our own diet, but we are lucky to be rich enough to afford it.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 53, of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in this group because it relates to food insecurity. The point I want to make today, when shortly we are to debate the whole of the food strategy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is that the issue of food insecurity for our poorest households—but not exclusively poor households—is a whole food chain issue. That is why I was a bit disturbed on Tuesday, when it was suggested that this Bill was about the agriculture sector’s relationship with government and government subsidy or support to deliver public goods, expressed primarily in terms of farming’s relationships to the environment, the countryside, biodiversity in the countryside, animal welfare and, perhaps, the wider rural economy.
Those are all vital issues, but arguably the biggest public good is the contribution to the delivery of a safe, accessible and healthy diet to our population. That involves the relationships of farmers not just with the Government or the environment but the whole apparatus of the food chain with which farming trades. Together, they need to deliver an effective food strategy to improve our population’s diet, drastically reduce obesity and other food-related disorders and make healthy food available to all at affordable prices. Food insecurity exacerbates poverty and disease and explains, in large part, the escalating dependence on food banks. That is why we need a national food strategy.
Like others, I served on the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The work of that committee, together with that of Henry Dimbleby’s food commission, will hopefully form the basis of that new government strategy. But it will if society recognises the crisis of unhealthy diet is an important one we are all facing, which has to be addressed, in part, through the relationship between farming and the other key players in the food chain.
Much of the regulation on food focuses on farmers, who are generally small businesses, and final outlets—restaurants, cafés, food shops and takeaways—which are also, largely, small businesses. But the nature of the food chain—the economics of it and, to some extent, its whole regulatory structure—is determined by the substantial companies in the middle of the journey from farm to fork, such as processors, wholesalers and supermarkets. These sectors are highly oligopolistic, but their decisions affect the price and standards to which farmers produce, as well as the tastes of consumers and the price and availability of food. They influence via their advertising budgets and their store displays in a way that affects price, diet and the availability of healthy food. These industries spend 20 times more on advertising highly processed food and confectionery than they do on fresh fruit and vegetables. Farmers and consumers need fairer, more balanced, greener contracts as we trade throughout the food chain.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s Amendment 52 and my noble friend Lord Dundee’s Amendment 55 concerning
“supply sources for livestock feeds as an input to food production and the resilience of the feed supply chain.”
Further to my Amendment 12, which did not find favour with the House, I believe the issue of food security is vital, having highlighted the UK’s lack of self-sufficiency in fruit, vegetables and potatoes in that amendment as well as the figure of 30% of our food coming from the EU.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 50 to make reporting at least every three years, rather than every five. But, with the transition phase now ending and a volatile food supply possible if there is no trade deal with the EU, I believe that a report on food security every three years is still too limited, particularly when we are having continual cases of extreme weather and perhaps future virus outbreaks. I hope that in Amendment 51 this will be covered as a case for further reports more than once every three years.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, my interests in this Bill are published in the register. This has been a good debate. I wish to add my voice to those of other noble Lords in support of the Minister’s proposed amendments to Clause 17, which recognise the strength of noble Lords’ feelings, expressed particularly in Committee. That is why the Government have committed to publish the first report on food security before both Houses rise for the Christmas Recess next year, with successive reports in future every three years.
The first report will include the impact of the current coronavirus pandemic on food supply, which will be a critical aspect of it. It will give a particular and important emphasis to the report. As noble Lords will be aware, there is a wide range of statistical data on food supply and consequent security that is already made available annually. However, the whole point of the exercise is to evaluate the longer-term trends in these reports and recognise those in the sound compromise of a three-year cycle.
I may seem like a crowd cheerer for the Minister, but I believe that my noble friend should be thanked and congratulated on reading the mood of the House accurately and acting on it.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 51, in which I join the Government. It was an amendment I proposed in Committee, so I thank the Minister and Government for agreeing to it. I very much appreciate the reaching of a consensus on this point.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Farming is, obviously, key, and its main focus is the provision of food. It is important that the House has reached consensus on this point. I do not agree with the point made that we need a more regular food security report; it is proposed that it should be annual. An annual report will result merely in a cut and paste of data and little consideration. The three-year cycle is key, because you can pick up trends and some novel work can be put into the process between or during each reporting cycle.
Finally, with respect to food security, I caution that we should not merely focus on the volume of food available. High-volume, low-cost and low-quality food is exactly what we do not want; obviously, we want sufficient volumes of food, but it needs to be food of a quality that will keep this nation healthy. We have all seen over the past six months how important good health and good diet are to the nation’s ability to deal with this terrible coronavirus.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This is a vital group of amendments covering food security, and I agree that the main purpose of our agriculture is to provide healthy, nutritious food. I welcome the Minister tabling amendments that require the first report on food security to be prepared before 25 December 2021, so long as it is a sitting day of both Houses. A further amendment requires reporting every three years. Others have tabled amendments pressing the case for more frequent food security reports.
I welcome the change in the Government’s position and thank the Minister for his introduction. I have added my name to Amendment 50 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This is a similar amendment, which requires that the first food security report be laid within 12 months of the passing of this Bill. It is important that the first report on UK food security should be completed within 12 months of the implementation of the Act and every three years thereafter. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a very powerful case for why it is important to get on with this matter. Food security is important to everybody in the country.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Boycott, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would like this food security report to be produced annually. We are all concerned about the state of food security, as we should be. However, I appreciate that the production of this report will be bureaucratic and is likely to take a good deal of data collection. I wonder whether the production of a yearly report would create such an administrative burden that the information contained in it would be insufficiently detailed to be meaningful. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this.
On Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, it is important that household food security is considered. At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw huge food shortages being experienced by households, including those of people working for the NHS who were unable to get to the supermarkets at a reasonable time. As we approach a second spike, food security will again come into focus.
I support the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on the impact of importing animal feed specially grown in what were previously rainforests in Brazil.
It is a terrible thing to be hungry. We are one of the richest countries of the world, and we must have robust measures in place to ensure that we can feed our own residents. Food security targets are one way to monitor this, alongside an implementation plan to ensure that targets are met. I fully support the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and I support the Minister’s amendments and look forward to his winding-up comments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I should in the first instance have declared my farming interests, as in the register.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I think there is a general feeling, even from those who would have preferred an annual report, that we have come to a good House of Lords consensus on this matter. I particularly want to acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said in speaking to Amendment 50, and all those who supported that amendment.
I turn particularly to what my noble friend Lady McIntosh and others said about Amendment 52. I understand the desire to publish yearly. We feel that it is very important to allow sufficient time to observe longer-term key trends from a variety of sources. We do not think that this would be as well met if it were necessary to publish reports each year. Producing reports at least every three years will allow proper consideration of trends from data. This is what we will put into statute, but if circumstances required earlier reports, of course we would produce them. That is why we very much feel that a report next year, given corona and, indeed, any other circumstances, will be very important.
Such trends may include, for example, the cost of food commodities; the sustainability of natural resources required for food production and supply; and the diversity of entry ports into the UK for food and drink imports. Some of these trends are slow-moving and do not change significantly year on year, but they may well do so over a longer period. That is where we must have that degree of analysis.
I say to all noble Lords, although I am particularly mindful of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, on the continuing work and vigilance, if there are issues of concern, I—and, I am sure, ministerial colleagues in the other place—would want to bring them before the House if there were certain crises. When there have been issues of concern, whether flooding or resilience because of Covid, we of course want to air them and bring them, in my case, before your Lordships. This is a particular point for the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie: much data on food security will be available on an annual basis. Data that will be used in the food security report, such as the Government’s Agriculture in the United Kingdom, the Family Resources Survey and the Living Costs and Food Survey, are published and made publicly available annually. Of course, Defra officials routinely track to spot any unexpected or significant changes. That is all daily work. The reports required under Clause 17 will consider the data produced through these surveys, in addition to less frequently produced data, to provide deeper analysis to help us provide an accurate picture of the UK’s food security to support the development of policy for the future.
On the important matter of the topics to be covered by the food security reports, we shall draw on established statistics, such as those I have mentioned, but officials will also want to monitor new data sources and emerging issues.
On Amendment 55, I reassure my noble friend that the food security report will already cover—under Clause 17(2)(b), regarding UK availability and access—the capability of UK agricultural production of crops, livestock and fisheries produce. This will include the availability of inputs, such as animal feed products. I was very mindful of what my noble friend Lord Caithness said in embellishing on what we are seeing in certain parts of the world.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no request from any noble Lord to ask a short question after the Minister’s reply, so I shall now put the question.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires reports under Clause 17 to be prepared at least once every three years (instead of at least once every five years).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) In this section “relevant day” means the last day before 25 December 2021 which is a sitting day for both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “relevant day” into Clause 17.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 58. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 58
Lord Krebs
“National Food Strategy
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the steps that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to take to—(a) increase sustainability of food production,(b) support food production and consumption, and(c) improve dietary health and reduce obesity,in the United Kingdom.(2) In relation to the priority mentioned in subsection (1)(a), the strategy must include analysis of the merits of—(a) incorporating the environmental sustainability of food into the Eatwell Guide,(b) ensuring that domestically produced food meets environmental sustainability standards,(c) ensuring that food waste is minimised,(d) ensuring that public procurement meets both health and sustainability standards, and(e) providing increased funding for research and development into sustainable agriculture.(3) In relation to the priority mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the strategy must include analysis of the merits of—(a) supporting local and regional food identities,(b) supporting procurement of food produced in the United Kingdom where appropriate and sustainable, and(c) developing an assurance scheme for food produced in the United Kingdom to enhance consumer confidence in the safety, quality and sustainability of such food.(4) In relation to the priority mentioned in subsection (1)(c), the strategy must include analysis of the merits of—(a) ensuring the reformulation of less healthy foods using fiscal and other appropriate means,(b) restricting the marketing, promotion, and advertising of less healthy food both in retail outlets and through the media,(c) reducing food insecurity, food poverty, and obesity in the lowest income groups,(d) standardising and mandating food labelling relating to nutrition, and(e) improving children’s diets.(5) Before publishing the strategy under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must develop a standardised set of reporting metrics on health and sustainability across the food system by which progress on implementation of the strategy can be measured.(6) The strategy in subsection (1) must—(a) set out proposals for independent oversight of aspects of food policy covered by the strategy, and(b) consider whether responsibility for such oversight should be given to—(i) a new non-departmental public body, or(ii) an existing organisation.(7) In preparing the strategy under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) other relevant Ministers of the Crown,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers, (d) the Northern Ireland Department, and(e) bodies that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the UK agricultural and food sectors.(8) In this section—“Eatwell Guide” means the United Kingdom’s national food guide entitled the “Eatwell Guide”, as produced by Her Majesty’s Government;“food waste” means waste of agri-food products by households or the food service sector;“less healthy food” means foods high in fat, salt and sugars.”
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for spending time yesterday in discussion with all four of us who have signed this cross-party amendment. Amendment 58 seeks to put into the Bill something that the Government are already committed to doing. The Government have said that they are
“committed to ensuring our food system delivers safe, healthy, affordable food for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much they earn, and which is built on a sustainable and resilient agriculture sector.”
This is precisely the purpose of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke eloquently a few moments ago about the nature of our food system. He anticipated a number of points that I will make in my short introduction.
The amendment would ensure that the Government put in place policies that will, in combination, help to tackle the dreadful burden of ill-health in this country that is caused by poor diet, particularly among the poorest in society. The Covid-19 epidemic has brought the cost of obesity into stark relief. The Government have spoken of it as a wake-up call. The new obesity strategy, launched on 27 July, is a very welcome step and an acknowledgment of the crisis we are facing.
The amendment would also ensure that our food system is more environmentally sustainable, underpinned by the latest science, while supporting farmers by encouraging local food, where appropriate. The fact that this country is one of the most depleted in the world in its biodiversity shows how unsustainable we have been up to now. I anticipate that the Minister will say in his reply that the Government have commissioned Henry Dimbleby to prepare a report on the national food strategy and are committed to publishing a White Paper within six months of his final report, and that this amendment is therefore unnecessary. However, this process may well take us into mid-2022. Any actions that follow would not only be uncertain; they might not arise until some distant future.
Fixing the failures in our food system is too urgent for further delay. If the disagreement is about not whether but when, let us get on with it now. Neither the children whose lives will be blighted by ill-health from unhealthy foods nor the environment that is being damaged by food production can wait any longer. I will listen carefully to the debate and the Minister’s reply but if he is not able to give a commitment to act sooner rather than later, I will wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and it has been an enormous pleasure to serve on the committee of which he was the chair. I think that our report has been invaluable and is extremely thorough, and I know that, like him, we are a little disappointed by the Government’s reaction. However, also like him, I very much thank the Minister for the time he has spent with us.
It is roughly 12 years to the day since I began work as the chair of the London Food Board—appointed by our current Prime Minister, in fact. I have worked for many years in this area: I have loads that I could talk about and loads of things that I have done. However, despite all the effort of so many people working across the sector—charities, Governments, think tanks, consultancies, agencies, doctors and health departments—the situation has not got better. Actually, it has got worse.
Next week, the Food Foundation—of which I am a trustee—publishes the updated version of its annual publication, The Broken Plate. It makes for terrible reading. I will give the House just a few snapshots. Within food advertising budgets, out of a rough spend of around £300 million, 14% is spent on soft drinks, 17% is spent on confectionery, 17.7% is spent on snacks and just 2.9% is spent on fruit and veg. The poorest 10% of households would need to spend 76% of their disposable income to meet the Government’s recommended diet, the “eatwell plate”. Since last year, this has risen by over 2%.
If you are a baby born today, these are your life chances with the system we now have. At age five, 13% will be overweight and 9% will be obese. At age 21, 21% will be overweight and 25% will be obese. However, at 65, 22% will be overweight and a staggering 57% will be obese, and they will have a range of illnesses: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and osteoporosis, as well as really bad teeth.
Why on earth do we let this carry on? I have been asking myself this question repeatedly for 12 years. I have also been involved in many measures to fix it: little moves that perhaps make something a bit better; bits of Sellotape over this problem or that problem. But the thing is—and this is why this amendment is so important—it is not about fixing one little thing here or another thing there; this is a system that is largely outside the Government’s control. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on the previous group of amendments, it is a system run by a few very giant companies that have become very rich at our expense.
If you apply simple capitalism to the food system, this is what you get: sell more products made from ever-cheaper ingredients. It is easy to see it when you talk about clothes or cars, but it is also what we do with food, and these are the results we see around us. We have foods that contain chemicals, that have necessitated cutting down rainforests and that have deprived orangutans of their homes. In short, we have created a system that is out of control. What we have is the politics of the market and not the politics of health.
If we want to make proper improvements, we have to support this amendment. It is only by having a proper food strategy—one that cuts across government, involves all the departments and is treated with the serious attitude that it deserves—that we will make the proper changes that we need. When noble Lords are thinking about voting on this, I ask them to please remember that food is also the major driver of our biodiversity. That is why it belongs here in this discussion about agriculture.
It is not just that we are getting ill from our food system: insects are dying, while animals all over the world are losing their habitats. Right now, roughly 65 billion animals are sitting in some sort of cage somewhere on our planet, eating food that, as was said, often requires deforestation to make, and waiting to be killed and processed on the journey to our plates. This is a really lousy way to run such an important system. It is a tragedy, because nature gives us healthy food—amazing and extraordinary stuff. I believe that we all have a right to it, wherever we live and whatever we own. I beg noble Lords to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission and a former chief executive of Diabetes UK.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I hope it will go to a vote and that we will pass it, because it is so important and requires further discussion, and it would be very helpful for the House of Commons to have to discuss it.
This amendment is like the proverbial good pudding—it is full of good things or plums, or whatever you want to say. In particular, I pick out the question of food waste, which is such an important issue—everybody says it is important but nobody does a huge amount about it. How important it is to support local and regional food identities in the production of quality and diverse food. On restricting the marketing, promotion and advertising of less healthy food, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said.
There has been huge political, economic and commercial pressure in this country in recent years for cheap food. A lot of food in this country is in fact, by historical standards, incredibly cheap—but being cheap does not necessarily mean that it is good food. It can be: in Trawden, an old weaving village just up the valley from where we live, there was no shop left, but a group of volunteers got together to set up a community shop that provides an astonishing range of really good, diverse, nutritious food which is incredibly cheap. Of course, most of the staff there are volunteers; you can do it on that basis, but it is not a basis for everywhere.
On the other hand, in June, when I came down before the recess, the facilities here were not all that great, due to the position that we are in. So I called at a convenience store on the way in and bought a couple of what, from the pictures on the packet, looked like rather nice ready meals. I could not believe how ridiculously cheap they were—less than a couple of bags of crisps, really. I put them in the microwave in the pantry on our corridor and thought I would have my tea. I have not eaten such nasty food for a long time. It was awful. You can tell that I do not do much shopping, given that I was buying these things. Nevertheless, it was an eye-opener as to how nasty cheap food can be.
The problem is that people who are living on the absolute minimum income—the sort of people whom the Minister was talking about earlier, who rely on the DWP—have to buy the cheapest food that they can get, because of their circumstances. So, for the people who buy a lot of the cheapest food because they cannot afford more, not only is the food cheap, it is not good. This is so important.
This amendment, in a way, underlines the whole Bill. We have talked about food production; the environment in which it is produced; the effect of food production on the environment; the quality of food; the standards that will be applied to food that is imported and to the production of that food—and all the rest of it. But where is the food strategy itself? What is the Government’s view on the food strategy? The Minister spoke of “safe, healthy, affordable food” and was quoted again by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. But we do not know what the present Government’s overall strategy will be when it comes to the trade-offs between incomes for farmers, quality of food, price of food and where it all rests with international trade. We are still waiting for the Government to tell us.
We know what the different systems can be. First, if farmers are to produce food in this country, they must have sufficient income—that is pretty obvious—but the question is how that income will be put together. We know that the existing CAP system, which is mainly, though not entirely, based on the area of land in a farm, will be replaced by payments for public goods. In Committee, I tried to tease out from the Government a definition of “public goods” but such a definition was not forthcoming. It means different things to different people, according to what they think is important. I think that access is an important public good; other people do not necessarily disagree but put more priority on other things—even I might put more priority on other things. What is a public good? Is the production of good, healthy, affordable food a public good or is it, as the Minister said several times previously in his replies on this Bill, a private good, because it is something that can be left to the market and the price that farmers and producers get for that food is a private, not public, good? There is a muddle about this.
You can put tariffs up, which is basically what the Common Market did originally. It protected the European farmers behind tariffs in order to provide food security in Europe. That then turned into production subsidies and a level of intervention in the market that resulted in the famous beefs mountains—which people out there still think are part of the CAP, although they disappeared long ago. Then it was all decoupled from production and the farm payments were based on land; that is the system that we have more or less got to now, with some environmental bells and whistles added. Now it is going to be decoupled from land and based on public goods. That is all very well, but none of that says what our trade relationships with other countries will be—the countries that we import food from and export food to—or what trade arrangements we will have. Deal or no deal, we will have arrangements with the European Union and with countries in the rest of the world. The nature of those arrangements and how they will work will have as much effect on the future of farming and of food—the price and what we get—in this country as everything in this Bill. They must be looked at together.
I would say that we need to concentrate on fair trade, health and well-being and environmental sustainability, putting the whole trade thing in the context of the environment. One of the best books I have read in the last year or two was Doughnut Economics, by Kate Raworth, an economist. She puts economics into the framework of society and the environment, rather than at the top. I recommend it to all noble Lords—and to the Minister. I hope he can tell us what our strategy for food will be in the future, in relation not just to all the things in this Bill but to our trading relationships with the rest of the world.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I rise to offer the Green Party’s wholehearted support for this amendment. I reflect, as I did yesterday with the immigration Bill, that the current system of a maximum of four signatures does not allow the full breadth of cross-party support for an amendment to be shown on the Marshalled List. This is something that I may be raising with the House authorities.
I begin by returning to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in introducing this amendment: neither human health nor the environment can wait any longer. That made me think of Oral Questions yesterday when the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in a supplementary question, asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, where our peat strategy was. This is an extremely urgent climate matter. I heard the chief scientist from Defra reflecting this morning on how crucial this was, how the UN will soon be including peat emissions in its global calculations and how we need to act. Yet we are still waiting. We have no legislative framework and we do not know when we will get this delayed strategy. When we are talking about the food, health and diet of the nation and the well-being of our agricultural land, we cannot afford to leave this hanging.
It is often said that we are talking about creating, for the first time, a food strategy for England. Wales and Scotland have been well ahead of us in this area for many years—particularly Scotland. But we do have a food strategy. Our current strategy, although it is not written down, is to let supermarkets and multinational manufacturing companies decide what we eat. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, set out in her extremely informed speech—she is of course your Lordships’ House’s expert in these areas—how that has given us a truly dreadful diet and a truly dreadful environment. We have to give people the chance to eat well and healthily, which simply is not available to them at the moment through our current food strategy.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my heart always cheers when I see an amendment to any legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. He brings experience, wisdom, knowledge and insight in a disciplined way to our proceedings, and I thank him warmly for this amendment. I am also glad to see my noble friend Lady Jones in full support.
We can in this House sometimes sound a bit like a Greek chorus, wringing our hands about what is wrong, social evils and the things that are failing to deliver the kind of society we all claim to want to see. The great thing about this amendment is that it takes the opportunity of this Bill to bring in a comprehensive and disciplined way some muscle to what we are going to do—demanding plans for action in specific areas by specific dates.
I have just looked through the list in the noble Lord’s amendment and think of all the hours that we have spent in this House discussing these things:
“increase sustainability of food production … improve dietary health and reduce obesity”—
how we lament obesity, but here is a firm suggestion as to what we should do about it. The list continues:
“incorporating the environmental sustainability of food into the Eatwell Guide … ensuring that domestically produced food meets environmental sustainability standards … ensuring that food waste is minimised”—
the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke powerfully on this point; I too become appalled and disgusted when I see the mountains of food that go to waste. The amendment further calls for:
“ensuring that public procurement meets both health and sustainability standards … providing increased funding for research and development into sustainable agriculture … supporting local and regional food identities … supporting procurement of food produced in the United Kingdom where appropriate and sustainable … developing an assurance scheme for food produced in the United Kingdom to enhance consumer confidence in the safety, quality and sustainability of such food … ensuring the reformulation of less healthy foods using fiscal and other appropriate means … restricting the marketing, promotion, and advertising of less healthy food both in retail outlets and through the media … reducing food insecurity, food poverty, and obesity in the lowest income groups”—
how we profess our concern about this grave social issue, but in the midst of our society we have these areas in which food insecurity, food poverty and obesity are so prominent.
I could go on, but I quote at length from the amendment because the points in it need to be spelled out for all to hear. I am very glad that the amendment has been moved. It is a helpful way of bringing the production of food and the whole system of agriculture into a direct relationship within a comprehensive strategy for dealing with many of the social and immediate problems which confront us. It is a terrific amendment and I shall be glad to support it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on moving this amendment, which on the face of it has much to commend it and covers a wide-ranging issue. In his introduction, he stated that he wanted to put in the Bill what the Government are committed to doing to deliver safe, healthy and affordable food to all. I cannot imagine that any Member of your Lordships’ House would disagree with that.
We are very fortunate to benefit from the expertise and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is, of course, a member of the advisory panel on the national food strategy, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, all of whom have signed this amendment.
The noble Lord also went on to say that the Government are committed to publishing a White Paper six months after the publication of part 2 of what I call the Dimbleby report on the national food strategy. After that, Mr Dimbleby is invited to review progress six months later. My concern with the amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister will say in summing up the debate, is that it pre-empts part 2 of the national food strategy. It is not always that I say this, but again I commend the Minister in this regard, because the Government seem to be on the side of the angels and have commissioned Henry Dimbleby to produce his report. I pay tribute to Mr Dimbleby and all those who have contributed, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Minette Batters and a host of others who have huge expertise and add great value in this field.
I understand, looking at the first part of the national food strategy, that the recommendation covers two main themes: making sure that a generation of our most disadvantaged children do not get left behind, that eating well in childhood is seen as the very foundation stone of equality and opportunity, and so it goes on; and then the second part of part 1, which I am going to draw on heavily when I come to later amendments. Mr Dimbleby talks of the essence of sovereignty being freedom, saying that this is a one-time opportunity to negotiate our new trade deals, that the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justifiably proud, and so it goes on.
So I am slightly confused, because I do not disagree with one iota of what is in this amendment. But there are many issues that I have found cause to criticise the Government on, and my noble friend has been patient in the extreme in listening to this, both outside and inside the Chamber, and I thank him for that. But when the Government have gone to the lengths of commissioning a national food strategy, are we not being a little pre-emptive in Amendment 58 before the House this evening?
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 58 on the national food strategy in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, connecting as it does to the useful Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which we have just debated and which recommends that government reports on food security should include assessments of household food insecurity.
As has been said, healthy food and a healthy environment are central to the Bill; therefore, it would be consistent with the Bill if the Secretary of State should present a food strategy to Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, its aims should be to increase sustainability of food production, to support food production and consumption and, not least, to improve dietary health and reduce obesity. I hope the Minister will back this proposal.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, took less than three minutes to move the amendment. I hope to copy that and avoid some of the Second Reading-type points that I have just been listening to.
The new clause is titled “National Food Strategy” and I think the word “national” is important. I shall touch on only three points. Subsection 2(d) concerns public procurement. We do need central control to do something about public procurement. We have devolved so much to bodies such as schools, prisons, the MoD and the NHS in terms of the budgeting. Trying to get national policy without dictating the detail to them is very difficult and needs a cross-government effort. I know how difficult it is to do because I tried and failed. So that is one issue.
My second point concerns paragraph 3 and “developing an assurance scheme”. There needs to be a good government kitemark assurance scheme. To be honest, what we have is not satisfactory, whether it is Red Tractor or the RSPCA. They are all over the place. The public need to have something they can be absolutely confident about, and I therefore think that an assurance scheme that the Government have developed —in consultation, obviously—would carry an awful lot of weight.
My third point concerns the fourth paragraph, on marketing and promotion. Something like 40% of the food in the supermarkets is on promotion. On restriction, I am also in favour of the voluntary changes in reformulation. When I joined the Food Standards Agency, it was almost at the end of its programme to launch the reformulation to reduce salt, which was on a voluntary basis and was incredibly successful. The UN supported it at its conference in London because of the work of the FSA. That work was then removed to the Department of Health behind closed doors by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and that was the end of it, in a way. The reductions we have had are nowhere near as good as in the past.
That brings me to my final point. Much of what was required on obesity, and changing the attitude to promotion and marketing, was set out years ago. I only reluctantly mention the names of civil servants, but they have said things in public. Dr Alison Tedstone of Public Health England, who was formerly at the FSA, had all this planned out. She spoke to all-party groups about it when Theresa May was Prime Minister. Theresa May dumped it all—absolutely dumped the programme in terms of advertisements before the watershed and the obesity programme for children. So it is all there; we do not have to invent anything.
My final point ties in with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said. I have been in the Minister’s place, getting up to say to the House, “Well, it’s in the Bill, we’re going to do it, you’re pre-empting something”, when deep down I really know that if I can get this in the Bill, it will be so much easier when I am back in the department to actually get the policy through. Because I do not believe the timetable that has been set out following Dimbleby 2 can be maintained unless there is a real parliamentary push, and the way to do that is to adopt Amendment 58.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I too had the privilege of sitting on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee—and I am grateful to the Government for their response to our report. I would classify it in English as “disappointing,” in Scottish as “peely-wally,” and I think the amendment before us goes a long way towards implementing what was unanimously agreed in the report. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that to have it in the Bill now is the right way forward to help Defra in the future.
The quality of the food we eat is costing us all billions—costing this country a great deal of money, and unnecessarily. We are the processed food capital of Europe, and that is a number one spot that we should not be holding. It was the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who said that we want to encourage the production of good, healthy food. I argue that the farmers do produce good, healthy food now: it is the industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on the previous group of amendments, that turns decent, good food into the poison that we are fed by supermarkets—all this ghastly processed food. Some of it is absolutely delicious, and you have to go for a second helping, but it is poison: it is doing us no good and it is costing the NHS, in due course, one heck of a lot of money.
So it is the industry. I remember that on one occasion we were interviewing Judith Batchelar of Sainsbury’s and then the British Retail Consortium. I pressed hard and it took a long time to get a final answer from Judith Batchelar, but she did finally say that Sainsbury’s would not sell chlorinated chicken. The British Retail Consortium, on the other hand, said, “Oh, no, we have no control over our members”. In other words, “We are not going to say anything, and we are certainly going to produce the cheapest food that we can find on the market.” The industry will be called to the table kicking and screaming against any change.
As so much of the food we eat is either fast food or from restaurants, we have absolutely no idea what we are being served. It is one thing to buy something with a label on it in a supermarket or a shop, but it is quite another when we eat outside our home and have absolutely no idea where the food comes from.
On a point of nitpicking detail with the amendment, I would have liked in subsection (4)(d), on food labelling, to have included the effects of climate change. I mentioned this quite a lot in Committee, and I hope my noble friend has read the book by Professor Bridle that I recommended to him, or at least his officials have and given him a precis of it.
Another point we raised in Committee which is hugely important to the whole of our national food strategy is what I would term Whitehall governance. It is not just Defra; there are numerous departments within government that are all involved in the food we eat, whether it is education—through schools—or the National Health Service, or whoever it is. Whitehall governance has also got to improve. It was quite clear from the number of Ministers we had to interview to get any sort of idea of what the Government were trying to do that it is not a joined-up process.
I believe this amendment would go a long way to push that in the right direction. I do not think my noble friend Lady McIntosh is right in saying that it will pre-empt part 2; it will strengthen the Government’s hand when part 2 is published. By that stage, the Government will be a little bit more ahead of the game than they are at the moment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would include in the Bill a new clause introducing a national food strategy. I understand that Henry Dimbleby’s team will publish part 2 of their review before the end of the year, and that the Government have committed to publish a White Paper within six months of that. I therefore believe this is the wrong place and the wrong time to try to legislate, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. However, I do agree with many things he said in his introductory speech. In this instance, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh rather than my noble friend Lord Caithness.
I believe that the best way to encourage people to improve their diet and reduce the problem of obesity—which seems to me also worthy of being described as a pandemic—is to produce policies that will maximise prosperity for all. The lower the proportion of household income that basic necessities such as food account for, the more people will choose to buy higher-quality and healthier food products. The creation of another non-departmental public body with powers to influence food policy, including the reformulation of less healthy foods by fiscal means, would run the risk of creating a vast, unaccountable bureaucracy, which would cause distortions in the market.
As noble Lords are well aware, the economy has been badly hit by the Covid-19 pandemic, and unemployment is rising. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that it is the wrong time to restrict the marketing, promotion and advertising of what the amendment calls “less healthy foods”? Surely it is not good for your health to eat large quantities of certain foods, but modest consumption of many foods containing salt does not harm most people in any way. I worry that a new body, or an existing organisation, that the noble Lord wishes to have oversight of these matters might overstep the mark, besides the obvious risk of tempting the nanny state to be overzealous, which would reduce personal responsibility for matters such as choice of diet and possibly even have counterproductive results.
I think that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy can make an important contribution to public understanding of the importance of diet. However, the best way to ensure that a wide range of healthy food is available at reasonable prices is to ensure that our food markets will be free of the distortions that exist today as a result of our membership of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment, to which I have added my name, along with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for so excellently setting out the rationale for this amendment, and I declare my interest as the mother of a dietician. I am grateful to the Minister for his time, and that of his officials, in providing briefings.
In Committee we had a long debate on this issue, with a large number of speakers raising the issues around the need for a national food strategy. We were headed off by the Minister on the grounds that we were waiting for Henry Dimbleby to produce his first report. This has now happened, and I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this is unlikely to be actioned without something in the Bill.
I am sure the Minister will again try to head us off by wanting to wait until part 2 of Henry Dimbleby’s report is produced some time next year—it will not be produced this year, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, thinks. After the second report has been produced and digested, the Government have promised to produce a White Paper consultation on the food strategy within six months. After that consultation, a food strategy will appear at some time, but this could well be in 2022. I ask the Minister to give some clarity on the timescales in his response.
There cannot be many in the country who do not know that a healthy diet and exercise are vital if we are to avoid the rigours of diabetes and obesity or avoid falling victim to Covid-19. However, for many people, knowing that a healthy diet and exercise are needed does not necessarily mean that they fully understand what a healthy diet is, what foods they should avoid and which they should eat more of. Other noble Lords have produced really frightening statistics on the health of the nation.
The amendment is specific: nutritious, healthy food must be readily available. The rise in the popularity of television cooking programmes shows that people are interested in the preparation of interesting-looking food made from fresh ingredients. However, many TV adverts we see scheduled, especially from large supermarket chains, often feature food that is high in fat, salt and sugars, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has referred.
Beefburgers are a prime example. To me, the images on the screen are not that appetising, but I am sure that for those who regularly consume beefburgers, they are enticing and encourage them to fill their supermarket baskets with them. There is nothing wrong with beefburgers, eaten occasionally, made at home with fresh meat and without the addition of salt and sugar. However, when eaten on a daily basis, as they will be in some households—especially those who are on low incomes and cannot afford electricity to cook meals, and find it easier to go to the takeaway— they do not improve life chances. My noble friend Lord Greaves has given examples of ready meals and their quality, and I am sure that most of us have had one of these at some stage in our lives. Getting manufacturers to reduce the amount of fat, salt and sugar is key to improving diet—the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said it all so much better.
In this House, we have a duty to do all we can to improve the diet of the nation. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, my daughter is a dietician and frequently says to me, “What are you doing about it?”. Alone, I cannot do a great deal, but together we can make a difference. This amendment is one way in which we can make a difference. On our virtual Benches we will support the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I urge your Lordships to support this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and I thank all noble Lords who have added their support in this debate.
In Committee we tabled an amendment calling for a national food plan to complement the previous clause on food security, and we had a very useful debate which highlighted the need to anchor a food strategy to the funding of farming for the future. Since then, considerably more thought has gone into what the shape of a national food strategy should be, and we believe that this amendment sets out a clear road map for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made clear, it was well informed by the excellent Lords report Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food, a substantial piece of work which highlights the need for action in many of the priorities set out in this amendment. It makes the link between the food we grow, the environmental impact and the public health consequences of a poor diet and emphasises the need for a standardised set of reporting metrics on health and sustainability as well as an adherence to procurement standards. It also calls for the establishment of a national food strategy, backed up by the establishment of an independent body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change, with responsibility for strategic oversight of its implementation. That is what this amendment seeks to deliver.
I have to say that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, seemed determined to ignore all the evidence, which shows that a lack of access to healthy food, along with poor diets and poverty are driving up levels of diet-related obesity and non-communicable disease. This adds something in the region of £6 billion a year to the NHS bill. There is a cost to this nation from inaction and a benefit to the agricultural sector if we can shift the solution to healthier food production and away from ultra-processed food. The Government need to address these issues.
In parallel with the work of the Lords committee, we know that Henry Dimbleby has also been working on a national food strategy. His interim report was published in July, and a more substantial final report covering many of these issues is due next year. We welcome that initiative. The Government have committed to publish a White Paper within six months of its publication and to follow up the recommendations, which is obviously a welcome step forward. However, there is no obligation on the Government to agree or to enact his proposals, or indeed to follow up the recommendations in our own Lords report. My noble friend Lord Rooker rightly reminded us that Governments have form on not following through on excellent reports of the past. Our amendment therefore seeks to provide legislative assurance that these proposals will be followed up with actions.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that we are not attempting to pre-empt or prejudge what the recommendations will be; we went to great lengths not to do that. We are asking only that the Government take them seriously and come up with their own food strategy within a set timeframe. Our amendment requires that the strategy be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day that the Bill is passed, which we believe is reasonable and achievable. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made clear, it is too urgent for any further delay.
For all the reasons articulated by noble Lords, a national food strategy, based on the issues set out in our amendment, is vital for improving the health of the nation. It is essential that our future agricultural policies are aligned with policies that deliver healthier food to feed the nation. It is a fundamental responsibility of government to act on this issue and to ensure that its agriculture, environment and public health strategies are all joined up on this issue.
I also thank the Minister for his helpful meeting yesterday. We had hoped to persuade him to make this a government amendment, and I still hope that we have persuaded him and he can make that commitment today. However, if that is not possible, I ask all noble Lords to support this amendment if it is put to a vote.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords. I am well aware of the mindset of many of your Lordships, having had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other noble Lords yesterday, as well as from what has been said today.
However, I open by saying that the Government are committed to developing a food strategy. I thought that in some of the contributions it appeared as if this was not the case so I point out that commitment, which will support the development of a sustainable, resilient and affordable food system, support people to live healthy lives, and protect animal health and welfare. I say to my noble friend Lord Dundee—without any chiding—that that is why the Government have already commissioned an independent review into the whole of the food sector. The review was launched in June 2019, and in July this year the first report was released, dealing with some of the most urgent questions raised by Covid-19 and EU exit.
The final report from Henry Dimbleby’s review is expected to be published in 2021. It will provide an opportunity to analyse the food system in this country and put forward—yes—an ambitious and comprehensive plan for transforming it. Although it will be for the independent team to develop its final report, it will examine the food system from root to branch, analysing in detail the economics and power dynamics that shape it, the benefits it brings and the harm it does. In doing so, it will look across the interwoven issues of health, climate change—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Caithness—biodiversity, pollution, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic diseases and the sustainable use of resources.
The Agriculture Bill is a framework Bill, and it is unusual to put detailed commitments into this enabling legislation. The Government have been very firm on their commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s final report—my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to that. It is only reasonable to say that we will need that time to reflect and secure agreement from all government departments ahead of Henry Dimbleby’s final recommendations.
We must also be careful not to pre-empt the contents of the final report, providing the independent team the opportunity to assess independently which measures would be most effective for our food system. Specifying what the White Paper must cover at this stage brings with it the risk that it directs thinking in a certain way, which could lead to new and innovative ideas being missed. It would therefore be premature to set out exactly what the Government’s food strategy must cover in the way that the amendment prescribes. The Government also have an issue with fixing a timetable without certainty on the publication date of the final report.
I also see this amendment in the context of the food security reports. Matters such as food supply and consumption, food safety, the resilience of the supply chain for food and household expenditure are already stated as being within the scope of these food security reports. The first report is be published on or before the last sitting day before Christmas for both Houses of Parliament. This report will also include an analysis of statistical data relating to the effects of coronavirus on food security in the United Kingdom, which was a key focus of the first report from the national food strategy. These reports will therefore certainly support the development and fulfilment of an ambitious food strategy.
I am also grateful for the Hungry for Change report, published this July by our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment. We will of course be building on a wide range of work as we develop our food strategy, including that report and many others.
I will cut in here and say that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned diet, but only one noble Lord referred candidly to exercise: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, obviously has a lifetime’s commitment to access and walking. Again, this is not just one thing but a combination of many issues that we have to grapple with.
Tackling public health and food issues properly requires a joined-up and practical approach across government departments, which goes beyond this Bill alone. During the Covid crisis, collaboration between government departments has been vital to ensuring that the food system receives the required support. We set up a joint ministerial food and essential supplies to the vulnerable taskforce, and throughout the crisis this example of cross-government working ensured that vulnerable people had access to food.
We are committed to continuing this level of collaboration and engagement across government to develop and deliver a new food strategy, as will be set out in the White Paper. I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness, for example, that Defra is already working with the Department of Health and Social Care and others to ensure that improving public health is a core priority of government policy.
Covid-19 has brought the risks of obesity and other health issues into sharp focus. As we all identify, it is more important than ever that people achieve a healthier lifestyle. The Government launched their new obesity strategy on 27 July to set out practical measures to get the nation fit and healthier, protect people against Covid-19 and protect the NHS. A coalition of partners is supporting delivery of the strategy through the Better Health campaign, which is encouraging adults to introduce changes to help them work towards a healthier weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to his concern about “sooner or later”. I understand that, of course. There is an imperative about the Government’s work in seeking out Henry Dimbleby to bring this forward, and our promise remains to bring forward a White Paper within six months of the final Dimbleby report. If we are on target, Royal Assent to this Bill is probably in October. Advancing this amendment, we are voting, if that is noble Lords’ wish, for something the Government will have to reject in the other place in the end—I must not conjecture on what the other place will do—because of the timing.
I say honestly, and can commit this across government, that I am fully confident that the plans already in place by the Government to develop a comprehensive food strategy will deliver the intent behind this very laudable amendment. There are issues, as in all these things. My noble friend Lord Caithness said he would have liked this or that. There are issues in putting something in the Bill now, but I think we are all united in wanting to ensure that our food system is fair, affordable, healthy and sustainable.
I understand the mood of the House. I think I assess the mood of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, although I must not pre-empt him. I ask him to withdraw his amendment because of the points I have made genuinely. The Government are developing a food strategy; it is an issue of timing. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has been engaged in the Dimbleby report. She, more than anyone else, can confirm that this is a report of the utmost depth and rigour. The Government will want to have at least six months—or within the six months, as I have said—to make sure we get cross-Whitehall collaboration to bring forward something of lasting value to every person in this country.
My reasoning for asking the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to withdraw his amendment is not to reject his and other noble Lords’ very distinguished role in bringing this matter forward but to be honest in saying that I think there are difficulties because of the timing. I respect whatever the noble Lord does, but that is why I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his careful and considered response. Overall, there has been very strong support for the amendment, with some excellent speeches. I will mention just a few points; I cannot really do justice to them all.
My noble friend Lady Boycott made the important point that, in spite of all the efforts made in recent years, things are still heading in the wrong direction. The Food Foundation’s Broken Plate report highlights some stark statistics to support this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also emphasised the urgency and pointed out that the current strategy is to let the industry rip. She also highlighted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the importance of metrics and measurements to ensure that we know whether we are moving in the right direction.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 59. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 18: Declaration relating to exceptional market conditions
Amendment 59
Lord Carrington
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that financial assistance can be provided to the farming industry in England at times of crisis caused by natural phenomena that lead to chronic problems in addition to the acute economic problems already covered by the Bill.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will allow the Government to provide financial assistance where there is a disturbance to markets for agricultural commodities causing producers to face reductions in income. However, I am concerned that the Bill unnecessarily constrains the Government from acting in all relevant circumstances. The Bill as presented to us will not provide the Government with sufficient ability to intervene in markets where disruption has been caused by environmental factors such as weather—for example, drought or flood, both of which we have had examples of in recent years.
I have taken on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, when similar amendments were debated in Committee and, while I agree that farm businesses need to take responsibility for resilience and sustainability as far as they can, we are looking here at events which are, generally, one-off events which occur outside the control of the farmers affected. For instance, in the case of floods, the farmer has no input into the maintenance of sea walls and other major flood defences.
I am aware of past suggestions that farmers should look to use some form of insurance facility to cover those eventualities but, in reality, such insurance is either unavailable or accessible only at disproportionate cost. In other countries, Governments have offered such insurance, but this has proved extremely costly to the taxpayer and has encouraged moral hazard.
There are also farming disasters which continue on a chronic rather than an acute basis, such as animal disease—for example, bovine TB. The Bill provides only for acute circumstances. In highlighting the issue of chronic or long-running issues, the amendment does not require the Government to intervene in those widened circumstances but provides a mechanism for the Government to do so if it believes it necessary. This seems an entirely sensible approach within an enabling Bill, which contains so much about providing the Government with powers to act when necessary. I emphasise that this amendment provides a power, not a duty.
Although the Minister indicated that the objective of the Bill’s provisions is to deal with acute rather than chronic issues, I believe it would be a major missed opportunity not to include power to deal with chronic issues within the legislation. Without the power to intervene in markets where environmental or chronic issues prevail, the Government could be rendered impotent in responding without bringing forward further primary legislation. Surely it must be better to ensure that the powers are available in the Bill on a forward-thinking basis rather than belatedly having to take them when an issue needs to be addressed. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on tabling these two amendments, both of which I support; I am delighted to have co-signed Amendment 108.
I have just one question. I spoke at some length in Committee, and my noble friend the Minister was generous in her closing remarks in that debate, stating that there is current legislation that would pre-empt these provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the specific example of flooding; obviously, one could refer to others, such as the current pandemic. In this instance, I am delighted to say that farmers managed to get the food into the shops and on to the supermarket shelves, and worked all hours to do so. There could, however, be shocks and other glitches to the supply chain. These two amendments provide for such circumstances and it would be neat, in my view, to include them in the Bill.
My question to my noble friend when she sums up is very specific. I think she referred to the new farming recovery scheme as a case in point where there is current primary legislation on which farmers could depend if such assistance was required. But to my certain knowledge, when farmers in North Yorkshire, in the constituency of our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, applied for the scheme, they were given the proverbial raspberry. We saw the devastation caused to the farms and to tourism in the area. They are still reeling from that result. That was in January—it seems an awfully long time ago, but it was only January this year—and they were still not back on their feet when they had to deal with the total lockdown from March onwards.
I should like my noble friend to revisit that legislation and, if she does not have time to do so today, leave a note in the Library on why she is convinced that that legislation covers the scenario set out in these two amendments, because in my experience it certainly did not in the case of North Yorkshire and our right honourable friend.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I meant to declare my interest as a landowner and arable farmer in my earlier contribution. I support Amendment 59, as I did in Committee. It is very important to have the power to extend financial assistance to events caused by natural phenomena, as well as the economic problems already covered by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated, the amendment moves beyond global market changes to other triggers, such as extreme weather and disease. Like him, I do not believe that the extension should be used as an excuse for farmers to claim that they have been victims of circumstance, particularly if caused by their own inefficiency or incompetence. Like he does, I believe that it is very important that once a natural phenomenon event has been identified, intervention should be implemented without delay.
As other noble Lords have stated, the Minister said in Committee that this situation is already covered by current legislation, but I bear in mind the recent comments of my noble friend Lady McIntosh about the situation in North Yorkshire. I also ask the same question. I believe the amendment should be in the Bill.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this amendment. It is encouraging that in the briefing note the Minister gave all of us there is a paragraph on the Government’s agriculture bounce-back plan, arising out of the impact of Covid-19. I am conscious that the Government are onside, but the question is whether this should be in the Bill, as the noble Lord described.
I share that I am closely involved with Sri Lanka, as many noble Lords will know. I remember seeing the devastation there on Boxing Day 2004. My wife and I went out there a few days later to help. If you happened to be in the spice trade, it was totally wiped out by two waves. These things do happen.
I also declare an interest in the Cayman Islands. I have family there. Those islands were almost wiped out some 20-odd years ago. In the last season Hurricane Irma did horrendous damage. These are part climate change, part other events.
I add to that list that I worked in India, in Calcutta, for the Reckitt & Colman group when the Indians invaded the tea estates. That hit the tea market something rotten that year—from memory it was 1962. These strange events do happen.
We are used to financial crashes and I think that seed health and other sorts of areas are covered. Nevertheless, today, in the world we are in now, I believe we need to have something in the Bill. It does not proscribe the Government too much. It is just a very sensible precaution relating to climate change and all the other challenges we face.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, which I declared on previous occasions. I will make one small flanking point to those made already.
As I explained to the House on Tuesday, you can see from farming accounts that the vast bulk of a farm business’s income is from traditional agriculture. They are businesses that have a relatively high turnover and low margins. Against that background, we have been talking a lot about various environmental changes that we want to see in the country, which in turn will be paid for by the public money for public goods formula.
However, against the whole-farm income of the vast majority of farms in this country, that amount of money will still almost certainly be relatively small. If a farm business faces a complete crash in its market—I speak as someone who has an animal livestock business that was wiped out in the foot and mouth outbreak—it faces an existential threat. When faced with an existential threat, you simply do everything you can to save that business. In reality, that means that, whatever the rules about how public money is paid for carrying out environment changes of one sort or another, it will simply be stopped and it will have to be sorted out later.
Rather the same problem faces Lake District farmers, where I am chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, with the Covid outbreak, which has killed off much of the tourist trade, although it is picking up now. It had a pretty devastating effect on farm incomes in a form of agriculture where the margins from traditional husbandry are very low and the farm business’s survival depends on generating tourist revenues.
I argue that the effect of market disruption, quite apart from the impact it might have on any particular farm business, poses a very serious threat to a lot of the entirely good propositions for environmental change and improvement inherent in the debate we are having on the Bill. Therefore, the environmental aspects of what we are discussing are a genuine potential candidate for collateral damage from market collapse. As such, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have given, it is appropriate that these provisions should be in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, in 2016, before the referendum, I chaired the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. We carried out an inquiry into resilience in agriculture, so I can say from the beginning that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that insurance is quite often not an appropriate solution for farmers, however it might appear to be so superficially.
Having said that, I find these amendments somewhat problematic. I will explain why. First, it is because the Bill as drafted talks about the disturbances being acute. The amendments would add “chronic” to the description of the disturbances, but all the interventions have been about the results of that disturbance. To my mind, that is quite an important distinction, because you could have a short-term problem with a long-term impact. I am not clear whether, as drafted, this talks about the original problem or the impact.
I am also genuinely unsure why existing provisions are not good enough. I heard with some interest what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, so I look forward to the Minister clarifying that, but this is one area where I feel the Government have farmers’ backs in the event of these sorts of disturbances. I do not recall seeing anything from the NFU on this so I am not sure it regards it as a big issue, but perhaps when he winds up the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will enlighten me on that.
I am reassured that the amendment would provide a power, not a duty, because a duty to continue to offer support for a “chronic” disturbance could be for years and years. I do not think that would be appropriate; I would be pleased to see it as a power and not a duty. Nevertheless, the Government can move quickly when they need to, as they did in bringing in the furlough scheme, for example. I am not entirely convinced by these amendments, I am afraid.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for returning to the subject of crisis management in his amendments. The clauses in Chapter 2 bring further into domestic legislation the powers that the European Commission exercised to provide emergency assistance in extreme market circumstances. The Secretary of State may modify the retained direct EU legislation from the withdrawal Act. This would usually involve intervention on storage. At this stage, once again, as I join another day’s proceedings on the Bill, I declare my interest as recorded in the register as being in receipt of funds from existing systems derived from the CAP.
We noted the Minister’s reply in Committee that
“farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating everyday weather conditions”,
and that the existing powers contained here and elsewhere
“are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered”
should it be necessary to provide emergency financial assistance
“due to exceptional market conditions”—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2184.]
brought about by unforeseen economic, environmental or welfare factors.
The term “chronic conditions” is interesting, as this would suggest exceptional circumstances becoming endemic and longer lasting. This would suggest that the market would need to adapt on a wider basis after any exceptional market disturbances caused by economic or environmental factors had been provided. It would suggest that the adverse effect on the price achievable for agricultural products may not return to normal. This circumstance would become subject to far more extensive dialogue and analysis, and when such a situation may warrant the actions wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, needless to say it would be controversial and subject to much debate.
We understand that Welsh Ministers are aware of these details and have not drawn attention to any aspect with which they are uncomfortable. The Minister has advised the House that the Welsh Government have agreed to these provisions; that would be our position also. We are generally content with the current drafting. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her remarks, which reflect many of our thoughts.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate.
I recognise the concern to ensure that farmers in England and Wales are protected against acute and chronic disturbances, including those caused by natural phenomena. The exceptional market conditions powers could be used to address acute and severe market disturbances caused by natural phenomena, such as extreme weather, so long as there is an adverse effect on the price achievable for one or more agricultural products. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Northbrook.
The UK Government and Welsh Ministers are confident that the existing powers are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered should they need financial assistance due to exceptional market conditions caused by economic, environmental or other factors. The current Covid-19 pandemic is a disturbance caused by environmental factors and is exactly the type of exceptional circumstance that these new powers are intended to address. We could not have foreseen that this pandemic would be as wide-ranging or prolonged as it has been, and farmers could not have been expected to prepare for the disturbances in daily life that it has caused. I feel confident in saying that if these exceptional market conditions powers were at our disposal now, the Government could have used them to support farmers during these difficult times.
The particular powers in respect to England, in Clauses 18 and 19, and in respect to Wales, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 5, are framed to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets rather than chronic conditions. These powers allow Ministers to act swiftly to deal with a crisis situation. These amendments would lower that bar and risk creating open-ended powers that allow the Secretary of State to make payments to farmers in much wider and undefined circumstances.
In most cases, farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating weather conditions. There are also powers in existing legislation that allow the Government to act in exceptional circumstances to support farmers in the event of extreme weather conditions. For example, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 could be used to make one-off payments to farmers affected by extreme weather. In response to recent flooding, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh acknowledged, the UK Government launched a new farming recovery fund for England, using powers under the NERC Act.
I have some details about the fund because I was interested to find out why some claims were not being met. I am afraid that I do not have the numbers here for my noble friend but I commit to writing to her with the details of the scheme, which are quite complex, and to furnish the numbers on how many grants have been made available. When I write, I will of course let noble Lords have a copy.
The Government want to encourage farmers to manage their own risk and become more resilient to foreseeable and longer-term disturbances. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are provisions to support farmers to improve their productivity, as well as to provide financial assistance for the delivery of public goods. For example, the Government will help farmers to invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure, and will support high-quality research to promote innovation and productivity in agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Part 3 also sets out powers to strengthen fairness and transparency in the supply chain. This will enable food producers to respond more effectively to market signals, strengthen their negotiating position at the farm gate and seek a fairer return.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, to ask a short question of elucidation.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
To clarify, does the Minister believe that the term “exceptional adverse conditions” covers exceptional events such as extreme weather and serious diseases, which can cause major financial problems for farmers and food security? Does this Bill cover them?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that this Bill will cover those situations.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and, of course, the Minister.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that, in moving this amendment, I have the support of the CLA, the NFU and the TFA, so it is a matter of general concern to all farming organisations.
We have heard several examples of problems that have required assistance, whether in Richmond, Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was extremely interesting. His emphasis on farmers’ reliance on income from farming is certainly something that we should bear heavily in mind, because that is what the whole industry is about; it is not about ELMs. As I understood it, the noble Lord’s concern was very much to do with making quite sure that the Government understand the cash-flow implications of these issues and the need to work fast to resolve them.
As has become clear from all the questions we have heard, my real point on this issue is that there is a lack of understanding of what is covered by this clause. The last question very much indicated that that is the case. However, we have received assurances from the Minister. I do not believe that it is worth my taking this any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 60. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment or the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Clause 20: Modification of certain retained direct EU legislation in connection with exceptional market conditions and for general purposes
Amendment 60
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
“( ) Before laying regulations made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Scottish Parliament,(b) Senedd Cymru, and(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 60, I will also speak in support of my Amendment 92, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, have added their names. Both amendments have a similar purpose, although Amendment 92 is put in stronger terms.
Amendment 60 relates to the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations regarding markets and storage in the event of exceptional market conditions. While these powers, if used, would apply to England, the implications for agricultural sectors in the devolved parts of the UK could be significant, as much of the output—certainly a significant amount of it—of farms and food processors in the devolved areas is marketed to and through England.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financial support or make regulations where there are exceptional market conditions, described as “a severe disturbance” or the threat of such, in agricultural markets. That could create a situation where financial support for English producers, or regulations inhibiting non-English producers, disadvantages producers from other parts of the UK. That could arise without deliberate intent, so I argue that it is in the interests of the Secretary of State to accept Amendment 60, which would require him or her to consult the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 109, which is tabled in my name. A similar amendment was considered in Committee, but I wish to probe the Minister further on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, rightly mentioned the role of devolution and its importance among our devolved nations and regions.
For us in Northern Ireland, the Agriculture Bill mainly contains provisions setting out the future agricultural policy framework for England. However, a number of provisions apply across the UK and some apply specifically to Wales and Northern Ireland. The powers in Clause 45 and Schedule 6 have been included to provide a legal basis to continue existing farm support measures following exit from the EU. The schedule allows the Northern Ireland department to modify direct payment regulations to simplify and improve how they operate in Northern Ireland. The schedule was developed when the Northern Ireland Executive was not functioning, and as a result many of the powers are intended to provide flexibility to develop future agricultural policies to meet local circumstances. Thankfully, the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and devolved arrangements were restored in January this year.
While the schedule provides much needed certainty in the short term, Northern Ireland is still left without a long-term vision of how agriculture and the environment will be supported in future, with no clarity around what outcomes a future policy framework should aim to deliver. This is despite widespread recognition from stakeholders that the current system is not fit for purpose.
Northern Ireland is facing considerable challenges. Northern Ireland’s economy is largely agricultural, so the challenges centre around species and habitat loss, agricultural and greenhouse gas emissions, poor water quality and market volatility, among others. The way in which we manage and use land will directly impact upon our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as to meet other environmental commitments. There is a need to reform how we farm and manage our land, and to move towards a resilient, profitable and environmentally sustainable farming sector. The need to outline the future direction of travel for Northern Ireland is of paramount importance.
There is a need for timebound provisions for Northern Ireland, which the Minister argued against in Committee. Currently, a risk exists that the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule could continue indefinitely. This would result in the long-term continuation of direct payments in their current form, which have been criticised by a range of stakeholders and do little to address the numerous crises facing farming and the environment. Although the Northern Ireland department has undertaken valuable work with a range of environmental and agricultural stakeholders on the development of a draft future agricultural policy framework, the direction of travel remains unclear. While the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule are similar to those which apply to Wales, there is an important difference. The Welsh provisions will expire in 2024, but there is no sunset clause outlined in those relating to Northern Ireland, hence my amendment, which has been supported by other noble Lords.
This is largely because the Northern Ireland schedule was created in the absence of an operational Assembly. This is important, as the presence of a sunset clause relating to the Welsh schedule creates an onus on the Welsh Government to develop domestic legislation in a timebound manner. The absence of a sunset clause in the Northern Ireland schedule creates a risk that the development of a future agricultural policy framework for Northern Ireland will be further delayed. This sunset clause is supported by the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, which has already communicated that. We are of the firm belief that Northern Ireland needs a bespoke, sustainable land management policy, legislated for in the form of a Northern Ireland agricultural Act, which would obviously have to be brought forward by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. As long as these provisions are contained in Schedule 6 and in this errant Bill—so to speak—that acts as a break upon the Northern Ireland department and prevents or dissuades it from bringing forward such a policy.
I urge the Minister to review the situation in relation to this and to talk to the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. I would be extremely grateful if he could see what can be done. He might then consider tabling a government amendment to that effect at Third Reading, because the bottom line is that we need to set our own agriculture policy and frameworks now that we have a devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. We want to encourage and underpin that, and to ensure that an important sector of our economy is facilitated to do just that.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 60 and 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce, and have added my name to them. As he has already said, Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the retained direct EU legislation for England relating to public intervention and private storage aid, and, as the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out, this power is replicated for the Welsh Ministers.
I welcome these powers, of course, as it cannot be expected that legislation should remain relevant in perpetuity; as time passes and situations change, the requirement for legislation to be modified will become inevitable. But nowhere in this clause is there a recognition that, with all four countries in the UK having the power to modify and intervene, a mechanism will be required to ensure that a decision taken by one country does not have an adverse effect on the other three countries of the UK. Nowhere is there a recognition that a mechanism will probably be required to avoid or resolve disputes. My noble friend’s Amendment 60 highlights the issue and offers a solution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have attached my name, and I also wish to express my support for Amendments 60 and 92.
On Amendment 60, which concerns a promise to consult, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, indicated, the Government have said that that commitment has already been made, so surely it would not be too difficult to agree to put it on the face of the Bill. Securing consent would be stronger, and to avoid conflict or rows, and to make things clear, transparent and open, surely that would be the best way forward.
To address primarily Amendment 109, the absence of a sunset clause in the Bill as it currently stands presents a risk that Northern Ireland will be left with basic payments regulations indefinitely. A sunset clause such as proposed would create an expectation that Northern Ireland’s Government would develop their own specialised agriculture legislation and a fairer, more environmentally friendly alternative to the basic payment scheme. Of course, they could just decide to roll over the existing provisions in 2026. The amendment, or something like it, would not force action but would open up a democratic window and opportunity for debate about action.
In yesterday’s debate on the immigration Bill, the Government Benches spent a great deal of time expressing a desire for non-discrimination. Surely this proposed new clause would put Northern Ireland on the same footing as Scotland and Wales in deciding agricultural policy. This is non-discrimination that should surely apply in this crucial case, given that agriculture is very important to the economies of all three of those nations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the absence of a sitting Assembly from 2017 to 2020 meant that little consultation took place on this issue, but the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, in a single day of very packed evidence on a number of issues, said that it wanted this sunset clause, and that is surely where the Government should take their guidance from. It recommended a timescale of 2024, but in terms of the electoral cycle there are good reasons to provide a bit more time. Your Lordships certainly know how long these considerations can take.
In the interests of ensuring that the Minister does not feel too uncomfortable, I shall not refer specifically to internal market issues, which have been creating difficulties for some of his colleagues, but I hope that the Government will take on board this call. It is not political, except in the broadest sense of seeking to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have democratic control over their own future. Amendment 109 would provide flexibility and the opportunity for action, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, these powers under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill make a declaration that exceptional market conditions which trigger financial assistance of a varying kind are to be exercised by the English Minister by way of regulations made under the negative procedure. That means that they will escape extensive parliamentary scrutiny, as we are well aware.
The sort of market conditions that Clause 18 has in mind is where there is a severe disturbance or a threat of such disturbance to agricultural markets that would have such a significantly adverse effect on producers in England as to constitute exceptional market conditions. That is to be judged by the limited criterion of the prices farmers receive for the sale of their agricultural produce. It is made clear in the Explanatory Notes that the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland have the ability, under their devolved powers, to make similar arrangements within their own jurisdictions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bennett, have outlined the unsatisfactory position in Northern Ireland, and I support their call for clarity. However, I suppose that that is the reason it is thought these clauses do not require legislative consent from the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament —let them do their own thing.
But of course, if exceptional market conditions exist in England, they are bound to have an effect, certainly in the borders of Wales that I know best. I recall that Welshpool was once the largest market for sheep in Europe, but there are equally strong markets in both Oswestry and Shrewsbury, and what happens in one affects the others. I remember that when I was chair of Marcher Sound, broadcasting to north Wales and Cheshire, our farming report every morning at six o’clock broadcast the price of hoggets in markets on both sides of the border. This was vital early intelligence as I headed for the London train.
It seems common sense that introducing financial assistance to English farmers under Chapter 2 would have a vital effect on prices and risk unfair competition. Moreover, agriculture is a significant part of both the Welsh and Scottish economies, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, pointed out. Surely decisions of this nature should be subject to consultation with, and consent by, the devolved nations. I have no knowledge of the markets of Carlisle and Berwick, but I have no doubt that there would be serious financial implications for those agricultural markets, and equally for those in Northern Ireland.
It may be suggested that exceptional market conditions could be so exceptional that an English Secretary of State would have to move quickly with no time for consultation, but surely he would move and should move in step with the devolved Administrations, and certainly not with any of the belligerence to which my noble friend Lady Humphreys referred.
The Minister will recall that, at the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill, I raised the issue of internal markets and price stability, not knowing that the now infamous Internal Market Bill was about to be unveiled to the world. Did the devolved Administrations know of the contents of that Bill? Their alarmed reaction demonstrates that they did not. It is a Bill that is perceived to be a unilateral grab at former EU powers which ought to be directed immediately to the devolved Administrations, and I promise that I will not even mention the attack on the rule of law.
The Government sometimes tell us that we have already left the EU, so get over it. Well, devolution is a fact of 20 years’ standing, and it is about time that the Government understood that one of its main implications is the need for consultation and consent. There is a limit to the extent to which lack of time can be pushed when there is no consultation. As the whole country knows, the reason for the rush and haste and us being here until midnight discussing this Bill is due to the hazard which this Government chose to construct for themselves. I support Amendments 60 and 92 in this group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I should like to speak to Amendment 109 in this group and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on bringing this point to the attention of the House. This part of the Bill, which concerns the devolved nations, is a particularly grey area as regards how it is to be administered. The noble Baroness and the authors of other amendments in this group have done the House a service by throwing light on these issues. I had hoped to put my name to Amendment 109, but I was not surprised to see how much support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has had.
I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in this regard. She is a former Member of and was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and she was a great support to me in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place. Rather unnervingly, she was always in her seat before I took my place, which is a little disconcerting when you are chairing a committee. I am sure that she will play a prominent and active role in the new Select Committee on Common Frameworks Scrutiny, to which she has just been appointed, and I congratulate her on that.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have regard to the concerns that have been raised in this group of amendments. He and I have had conversations before on the common frameworks and what progress has been made on them, so I will pay close attention to his response. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for bringing forward her amendment in this group.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, along with other noble Lords, in Amendment 109. As usual, she has set out the arguments clearly and in substantial detail, and I do not intend to rehearse what she has already said. However, on 23 July, I made a number of points when we were discussing a similar approach to these things in Committee. I want to repeat some of those and add to them because the situation has changed and developed in a very unhelpful way.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as a number of Members have said, this debate is in the context of exceptional market conditions. I had the privilege in 1979 of being a PPS in the Northern Ireland Office and spending many happy hours in Northern Ireland, where it really comes home to one that agriculture is absolutely vital to that part of the United Kingdom.
I shall make the simple point that, as one who was responsible for a fair amount of drafting in another role in the other place, it seems that officials would much prefer to have an automatic reference in a Bill than an implied one, particularly when it is in sensitive areas. For instance, we are likely to see changes because of climate change. To take an example that I used earlier, who would have thought 20 years ago that Sussex and Kent would be competing in the viniculture market, with enormous opportunities to export? There may well be other developments because of climate change that happen in just a section of England and, unless they are automatically referred to the other three devolved Parliaments, we may find that they too have micro-industries in their particular part of the UK.
That just seems sensible in Amendment 60. I am not going to be tempted to go to Amendment 109 and I actually think Amendment 92 is wrong.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled or supported the amendments in this group, which raise various issues relating to devolved competence. Amendment 60 makes what seems a very sensible suggestion of consulting the devolved Administrations before laying regulations under Clause 20. Given that certain modifications to retained EU legislation are likely to impact on the devolved nations, perhaps on some more than others, it seems perfectly right that there should be a formal consultation requirement. However, I note that even formal consultations on many important matters have not been taking place as regularly or as needed in other matters, and I urge the Government to work much more proactively in this manner.
For the past 20 years, we have had three other legislatures in the UK, and none of the new laws resulting from our withdrawal from Europe should be an opportunity for a power grab of devolved responsibilities back to Westminster. I am therefore glad to see that Amendment 92 proposes a requirement for the devolved Administrations to consent to any regulations being made under Clause 35 on standards relating to the marketing of agri-food products. While we would certainly welcome a mechanism for meaningful consultation, we recognise that a requirement for consent could, in certain cases, delay the implementation of important changes to marketing standards.
Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, my noble friend Lord Hain and others proposes a sunset on the Northern Ireland provisions contained in Clause 45 and Schedule 6. As the noble Baroness noted earlier, Northern Ireland has an economy based largely on agriculture and needs a long-term future policy framework without further delay. The case has been strongly made for that amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response in relation to it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and thought-provoking debate. I would like to open by setting out a little background, because I think a lot of this would be helpful. The UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—DAERA—and the Scottish Government to develop a UK agricultural support framework. My noble friend Lady McIntosh made this point. We expect to be able to agree this soon.
Defra Ministers already meet our devolved Administration counterparts on an almost monthly basis as part of the inter-ministerial group IMG EFRA, where any modifying of legislation can be discussed. In addition, there are already good working relationships in place within the Defra situation—particularly, from my direct knowledge, between the devolved Administrations. If I am allowed to say so, I very much respect Lesley Griffiths, who is a Minister in Wales. For example, the IMG EFRA meeting, which takes place almost monthly, is used as a forum for discussion on policy changes. The Government intend to keep the devolved Administrations informed on any early thinking on possible policy changes to marketing standards in England.
I also agree with the tenor of this debate, and I want to raise what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said about collaboration and tone. That is absolutely key, particularly in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, where agriculture is such a strong feature of national life. I would like to think of England as a rural country but, my goodness, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales it is at the core of the national economy.
Thinking of Amendment 60, the UK agricultural support framework includes crisis measures, public intervention and private storage aid for collective discussion to ensure there is an opportunity for any concerns to be raised about the effect of changes in one part of the UK or another. The UK Government work collaboratively with devolved Administrations on this matter, and I will give a complete assurance that it is in everyone’s mutual interest that that continues and is successful.
Amendment 92 seeks to ensure the Secretary of State would need to secure consent from devolved Administrations before laying regulations under Clause 35(1). Clause 35 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on marketing standards for products marketed in England only, so it would not be appropriate for devolved Administrations to be able to veto these England-only changes, which would be the effect of this amendment. In the same way, we have not taken provisions to require the UK Government to consent to change in devolved areas.
I say this because the UK agricultural support framework states that Administrations should refer all planned changes in marketing standards for collective discussion to ensure that there is an opportunity for any concerns to be raised about the effect of changes to standards in one part of the UK or another. The Government think that is the best way forward. It is a way we can collaboratively and collegiately work on such an important issue—the agricultural framework.
Everyone knows that agriculture is devolved, and the Welsh Ministers in DAERA under this Bill have taken powers themselves in Schedules 5 and 6 respectively. Wales can modify retained EU law itself under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 5, and Northern Ireland under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6.
Turning to Amendment 109; I have thought about this a lot because perhaps there is some confusion at my end. I have heard words such as “parity” on this matter, and a number of noble Lords from Northern Ireland have spoken. My understanding is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has debated and agreed its legislative consent to the Bill. Therefore, we do not believe this Parliament should seek to override the constitutional view agreed by the Assembly.
Reference was made to the committee that recommended a sunset clause, but the Northern Ireland Assembly recommended the LCM without it. Our view, and I entrench this very strongly, is that it is for DAERA to decide and to liaise with the Assembly, not the UK Government. I am intrigued that we are seeking to impose a sunset clause when it has been made clear to me and Defra, as the honest brokers of this, that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not want to set an arbitrary date, and it will be for Northern Ireland to decide how and when it has a new agriculture Bill. We agree with that, and sometimes devolution means that we will have separate ways forward. That has been the LCM from the Assembly and DAERA, and we believe that the Agriculture Bill—of which, as I say, I have been the honest broker regarding the Northern Ireland schedule—gives Northern Ireland plenty of scope to involve its thinking on the delivery of agricultural support. I therefore tactfully suggest that, if we believe that this is a devolved matter, it is for the institutions of Northern Ireland to decide.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received no requests from noble Lords to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate for their support for my amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and noble colleagues who have spoken on the Northern Ireland sunset clause so clearly and unequivocally. I believe that all three of these amendments are central to how our devolution settlement is to proceed.
The Minister is a face of government that we all find attractive: he is constructive and conciliatory, and I am sure that, given his background, when he talks about engagement and discussion across the devolved Administrations, he does it in entirely the style that we see here. However, I am afraid I have to say to him that there are other members of the Government whose style is far less conciliatory and can be abrasive.
We have legislation coming down the track that is absolutely crucial to the future of the devolution settlement, especially the Trade Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, where it would appear that the Government, frankly, are bent on centralising control and weakening the devolution settlement. Given the point about agriculture being so important to the devolved Administrations, there is perhaps an opportunity in this Bill to put those markers down. Actually, I would have liked it if the Minister could have accepted Amendment 60; I accept that Amendment 92 was a tease for further discussion about some form of qualified majority voting.
However, with regard to just saying, “We consult; therefore, we do not need to consult”, I say that the time will come when some decision will be taken without consultation, and there will be no recourse because there is nothing in law to prevent it. That will be disruptive and a shame. The Prime Minister says that he is moving his legislation to protect the future of the union. The reality is that nobody threatens the future of the union more fundamentally than our current Prime Minister, and Ministers should understand that the precious union is very delicate at the present time.
Ministers need to reach out not just with reassurance but a willingness to create a mechanism, as my noble friend Lady Humphreys said, that will enshrine the way decisions are taken and disputes are resolved in ways that do not leave it—because this it is where the Bill leaves it—to Westminster and the English Secretary of State to override devolved decision-making. The Bill allows that to happen; these amendments were designed to prevent that happening, and I regret—but am not entirely surprised—that the Government have not accepted them. However, I can assure him—and I am sure that other noble Lords will agree with me—that these issues will return in spades in the debates we will have on the coming legislation between now and Christmas. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 61. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 27: Fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products
Amendment 61
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to provide regulations for fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise in the absence of, and at his request and with his permission, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who has been unavoidably called away and sends his apologies. His two amendments refer to Clause 27. They are minor amendments but would have significant consequences.
The clause relates to fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products and enables the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of them. The regulations may be sector specific or in general terms. As we learn from the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power
“to make regulations to introduce obligations that promote fair contractual relationships between primary producers, producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, produce aggregators and the business purchasers of their products.”
Obviously, there is a great desire for fairness and for protection from unfair trading practices.
At the kernel of the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is a wish to ensure a better relationship between the processors, the supermarkets and primary producers. I am sure that this is a concept with which all noble Lords agree. Rather than press his amendments at this stage, he seeks to ensure that we enable primary producers to make the investments they wish to make to meet the new responsibilities they face as set out in Clause 27.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, went to great pains to state, and I am sure that he has reassured my noble friend the Minister of it, that rather than press the amendments to a vote at this stage, he is grateful for the opportunity to set out the views expressed in them and seeks an early meeting with the Minister if it would be possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I had an exchange of emails yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, to make sure that I understood his amendments correctly. He basically put it to me that he wishes to place an obligation on government rather than for it to have a discretion, which is as the Bill is drafted, to make regulations on fair dealing. I have told him that I support the fair dealing provisions in the Bill—I said so in Committee—particularly with regard to food waste, which is often in effect forced on farmers, making them less competitive and environmentally more wasteful, by the requirements of supermarkets, which I do not think is fair dealing. I am all in favour of that, but I am less convinced about the placing of such an obligation on Ministers. However, these issues can be well discussed in the next set of amendments, about the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his amendments, for the significance in which he holds them as necessary for the Bill, and for leading the House in returning to Clause 27 on fair dealing obligations. I am sorry he has not been able to stay tonight to make his case due to personal circumstances, and I hope all continues well. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for stepping in and moving his amendment. I concur with much of what she said. The distribution of market returns from food between the primary producer and the rest of the supply chain, especially in regard to the retail sector, certainly appears unbalanced. The proportion returned to the farmer has steadily declined over many years.
That regulation is needed to ensure further provision to introduce a greater measure of fair dealing obligations on the supply chain is recognised in Clause 27. Following the establishment and workings of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the specific task of monitoring relationships between the UK’s largest supermarkets and their direct suppliers has proved very effective. I would go so far as to say it has proved critical in delivering effective change down the supply chain.
We would not be able to support the noble Lord should he wish to press his amendment. The specific details of each statutory code are being developed in consultation with industry and will be set out in secondary legislation. It will be extended across all sectors of agriculture. This is already in progress.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for introducing this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I confirm that my noble friend Lord Gardiner has agreed to meet the noble Lord, Lord Empey, at the earliest opportunity.
There is no doubt that the Government will use these powers. The introduction of fair dealing obligations is vital in the creation of a more equitable supply chain. This is a point on which there is wide agreement. However, the Government believe it is equally important that these obligations are appropriate and proportionate and produce the right outcomes.
To ensure this, the Government intend to consult industry before regulations are made, to ensure that they are properly tailored for the issues at hand. In this regard, a UK-wide consultation exploring contractual issues in the dairy sector has recently been concluded. The consultation invited a broad range of views about future regulations, asking specific questions about various issues. Some of these issues, such as contractual exclusivity, are almost unique to the dairy sector. The Government intend to repeat this approach for any future exercise of the powers in Clause 27, allowing the views from industry and other stakeholders, often about very detailed sector-specific issues, to inform final decisions.
The introduction of blanket obligations across the whole of UK agriculture would hinder the ability to reflect the specific nuances of each sector and potentially fail to address the specific problems experienced by particular types of producer. Also, given that certain agricultural sectors are far better integrated than others, comprehensive obligations could ultimately lead to provisions being introduced into sectors where they are simply not required.
I hope I have given sufficient reassurance and ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to those who have contributed to this debate and am sure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is grateful for the opportunity to have put forward his views and the sentiments described in these two amendments.
My noble friend is absolutely right that the consultation with the interested parties that has just concluded will be crucial in the development and implementation of the regulations. It would be helpful to have confirmation that these responses will be available on the web so that we can look at them when it comes to implementing regulations before the House at that time.
At this moment, given the confirmation of a meeting with my noble friend Lord Gardiner, I am sure it is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I remind noble Lords that, other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Any Member wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Lord Grantchester
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for adding their names to this amendment and to many of my following amendments, which introduce the office of the Groceries Code Adjudicator as the mechanism by which these fair dealing provisions under Clause 27 will be administered. At this stage I will mention that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked me to express his disappointment that he has had to leave tonight because of the late sitting of our proceedings; he cannot get home without leaving immediately. He would have liked to have been present to make his remarks on this important series of amendments to this clause.
I introduced these amendments in Committee as probing amendments to draw out from the Government how they expected to take these provisions forward. As with many features of this framework Bill, so much of the detail and the governance arrangements are not being made explicit in the Bill.
That these provisions have been recognised as needed and necessary to the better conduct of a fair market is something that the Government can be congratulated on. The debate in Committee underlined how effective the GCA Act has been in setting out and policing business practice in the GSCOP, which now regulates the behaviour of the retail industry, which must abide by it in its relationships with its direct suppliers. There was universal praise for Christine Tacon on how she, as the adjudicator, successfully encouraged effective change to become embedded down the supply chain.
In response, the Minister explained that his department, Defra, would be the lead department in delivering these obligations. The Government intended to commence these regulations agricultural sector by sector, starting with the dairy industry. This has already started, with a consultation on the operation of contracts that is drawing to a close next week, as I understand it, on 24 September—that is, three months after the opening of the consultation in June. However, I may be corrected, as on a previous amendment the noble Baroness the Minister said that it has already closed. That it is on the cusp of closing or has already closed is regrettable in that we are not able to deliberate on the consultation in our considerations on the Bill.
I table these amendments again to give the House a chance to debate these important provisions and reflect further on the Government’s approach. I state again that Clause 27 is a very bold and ambitious step that the Government have taken. I express concern that, although the groceries code has proved very effective in stabilising fair dealing provisions in the retail sector, difficulties remain regarding whether this was the appropriate mechanism to cover the whole of the supply chain: the service sector as well as the retail sector, the widespread diversity of food products in the supply chain and how they are delivered across many forms of enterprise and business practice.
The Government are undertaking a huge task and care must be taken, as a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime may not fit all in the appropriate manner. The problems and solutions in one sector and the relative merits in the behaviour of various participants may not be suitable to be applied across the board to all sectors, each with differing market imperatives, regarding how the various markets may be made to work more effectively. That there is an imbalance in negotiating power between the primary producer through the processing, manufacturing and product development supply chain and the end market is not in doubt.
I shall not press these amendments tonight, nor support other amendments, including Amendment 87 should it be pressed. The Government have set out on the task and already started a consultation with the dairy sector. As I set out in Committee, I was concerned that these provisions had a narrow focus on contracts. Indeed, Clause 27(1)(a) specifically addresses contracts. Fair dealing provisions should examine the business relationship in its widest implication and interpretations that encompass many various circumstances that arise in primary production. However, it must be recognised that a first step is being taken, and it is starting at a very pertinent point—the contract.
In the interval between Committee and Report over the Summer Recess, I spoke to many in the dairy sector, especially those at the foot of the supply chain—the dairy farmer and his or her processor. I can tell the Minister that the department’s consultation has been widely promoted among the many sections of the industry: the farmer, the producer group representing the farmer’s suppliers, and the processing industry. Many have shared their submissions with me, and I am sure that the Minister’s department will receive a widespread response. Here and now is perhaps not the place to debate this further; I will add merely that the voluntary code of practice—VCOP—in contracts, introduced in 2012, has proved ineffective in improving fairness and transparency on a wider scale and, as has been experienced during this pandemic, urgency is needed to tackle the problem more extensively and in a comprehensive fashion.
I also note that this is a widespread problem throughout the industry that now extends across borders, with the overseas ownership structure covering the dairy industry in both the UK and Europe. The EU is also pressing on with its solutions, through directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chains. Can the Minister make any comment, even though the consultation has barely closed, on the progress of the consultation, concerning the numbers, extent and general features beginning to become clear? Even in the immediacy of the lockdown, the retail relationship with the supply chain is today much better than it has been, due to the activities of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Will the department be separating out submissions from the retail sector and the service sector from this consultation? The consultation does not mention the wider farmer-processor relationship with the ongoing supply chain, and specifically with the retailer. Will the Minister give a commitment that further inquiries will be conducted as the submissions are considered? It may prove difficult to make immediate recommendations. Reflecting across other sectors in the industry, can the Minister give any indication as to when further consultations will be progressed? Which sector has the department next in mind? Furthermore, how might the various sectors combine to find comprehensive answers to this very difficult problem of fair dealing in the industry, a problem that is now being tackled by the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the co-signatories for bringing forward Amendment 63 and others in this little group. Amendment 67, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—I thank her for supporting this amendment —seeks to achieve precisely the same ends. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in expressing regret that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is not able to speak to this group, but I entirely understand the circumstances in which he felt he had to head north.
Again like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, who has done a sterling job in regulating the relationships between the major retailers and direct suppliers. I was most grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this amendment with my noble friend the Minister, who I understand may be able to signify some movement in this regard. I look forward to that with great interest.
I hope that the Government are minded to widen the remit to cover the gap that needs to be plugged by including the indirect supply chain, such as dairy, which is currently excluded from the process. For dairy producers and fruit growers, many of whom are quite small in size, it is extremely difficult to bring a complaint to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That is why I am very keen—and it is something that we concluded some seven or eight years ago on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee next door—that it should be incumbent on the Groceries Code Adjudicator to bring forward, on her initiative, investigations in this regard. The indirect supply chain, as well as the direct, is extremely important for these small suppliers, and things do sometimes go awry. We should not be entirely reliant on complaints from small producers and growers who can too easily be identified and may, as a result, lose their contract, livelihood and mainstay of their income.
I very much support the Groceries Code Adjudicator taking over this role. I understand the difficulties, as she reports to a different department. If there has been some movement and my noble friend is able to see a way forward in this regard, I think it would be very welcome to the House.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support this suite of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has said, I was quite happy to add my name to her Amendment 67 but, in fact, all these amendments as elucidated by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, clearly seek to achieve the same ends, namely to widen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the indirect supply chain, to benefit those in the dairy industry and fruit growers’ association.
I pay tribute to the outgoing Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, and welcome the new person to that role. It is interesting that there was a review published on 16 July this year into the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which found that:
“The overall evidence from the review also suggested there is still a need for”
such an organisation and such a person,
“to ensure retailers comply with the requirements of the Groceries Code.”
Some responses to the review indicated that some suppliers are still reluctant to raise issues with the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Government recognise in the report the steps that the current Groceries Code Adjudicator has taken to encourage suppliers to raise issues and make the commitment to work with the next Groceries Code Adjudicator—the new person in that job—and the retailers directly.
Since the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the independent regulator ensuring that regulated retailers treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly, it would be good at this stage if the Minister could show us a certain direction of reflection in his thinking in respect of the amendments in this group, which seek to widen the remit of the role to cover the indirect suppliers and to ensure that there are greater levels of regulation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I have added my name to Amendments 63 and 64 in this group, as I believe that the Bill needs to be much clearer on who will take responsibility for complaints into alleged non-compliance.
Fair dealing in agriculture is vital to the reputation of the farming industry, and the public need to be reassured that there is someone watching their backs. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for setting out the argument so clearly. The aim is to widen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, who is a truly independent person.
A “specified person”, as stated in the Bill currently, could be anyone. Can the Minister say who the Government had in mind to be this person? Would there be open recruitment, with advertising, or would this be an appointment through the old boys’ and old girls’ networks? The Groceries Code Adjudicator is a far better choice: a nationally recognised person who has a reputation and inspires trust and confidence. This is the proper person to take forward alleged non- compliance.
Amendment 64 sets out how the Groceries Code Adjudicator will interact with the Agriculture Bill in determining a complaint being carried out. I have not added my name to Amendments 65 and 66, but I fully support them. It is somewhat surprising that the Bill just refers to functions being conferred on “any” person. This does not fill me with confidence. Of course, this person must be competent and appropriate, and this should be in the Bill; otherwise, it might be somebody like me.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has spoken about fairness and contracts. Dairy farmers are at the start of the supply chain and need to be considered carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled an amendment which would also give the Groceries Code Adjudicator responsibility for the supply chain in the regulatory clauses of the Bill. There seems to be a wish to achieve the same aim, as has been reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Given the very reasonable arguments which have been put forward this evening, I hope the Minister can give a positive response to this debate. I look forward to his response.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had requested to come in, and I understand she has not been able to. Therefore, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, before the Minister responds.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you— I was scrubbed by mistake. I am sure your Lordships are very happy that I have been slotted back in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you very much. I would like to say that these amendments are so obviously a good idea for the regulation and adjudication of this part of the Bill. There is nothing else to be said; I hope the Minister accepts them.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords for contributing toward it. Of course, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, is not with us. He sent me a note, and I will have further discussions and considerations with him, because I am very keen to hear what he would have said in this debate.
Turning to Amendments 63, 64 and 67, I would like to assure noble Lords that work is ongoing to determine the most appropriate mechanism of enforcement for the provisions under this part of the Bill. No decisions have been made about who will be appointed as the enforcement body for Part 3. It is important to note, with particular reference to Amendment 67, that while all the measures contained in this part of the Bill will collectively work to improve supply chain fairness, the Government believe enforcement will work best when each particular policy area in Part 3 can be addressed individually. I say that because it is very important that we get to grips with the issues in each sector, identifying those that are distinct as well as those that may be common. I think that would be a pragmatic consideration.
On the suggestion that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be given enforcement responsibilities, it is important to note that one of the key factors in the adjudicator’s success is its targeted focus on the behaviours of the UK’s largest supermarkets with their direct suppliers. This has enabled the adjudicator to work closely with the industry in developing supply chain solutions. I join other noble Lords in acknowledging in the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It has been a considerably successful tenure of office.
A government call for evidence in 2016 explored the possibility of extending the adjudicator’s remit beyond those directly supplying the largest retailers. The review found insufficient evidence of widespread problems further down the groceries supply chain and concluded that there was no justification to extend the remit. However, it did identify some remaining concerns. These were sector-specific and predominantly concerned with the first stage of the supply chain. Following on from this, we feel that such issues are best addressed with the appropriate and targeted interventions included in the Bill.
Preliminary analysis of the responses to the Government’s consultation on the dairy sector has shown that there are a range of views about appropriate enforcement. I emphasise that an adjudicator-style model is only one of many potential means to resolve contractual disputes and ensure compliance with any new regulations. Amending the Bill to appoint the Groceries Code Adjudicator as the enforcement body would serve potentially to tie the Government’s hands to only one of the many possibilities available. This would also preclude the ability to listen to the views of industry and respond accordingly, which is really important and, we think, critical in creating effective solutions.
The Government are, of course, aware of the issues that farmers face in the supply chain and that is not confined to the dairy sector. To answer one of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the Government will carry out similar consultations to explore the issues facing other sectors in turn. Discussions with stakeholders have already begun, to look at the situation in the red meat sector and what sort of interventions could improve the position of producers in that supply chain.
On Amendments 65 and 66, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for highlighting the importance of a robust enforcement regime to ensure that the fair dealings obligations are effective and sustainable. It is important to state that no decisions have been made about the nature of enforcement, or the body responsible for enforcement. The reason is robust and strong: the Government want to work with industry and listen to its ideas and concerns before any final decision is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the consultation on the dairy sector. To be precise, I can confirm that the consultation closed on Tuesday. The consultation included a specific question about dispute resolution and, while the detailed analysis is still being carried out, it is already clear—this is broad-brush, because I asked whether there are any indicators—that stakeholders have a broad range of views about the most appropriate form of enforcement and finding the best solution will obviously require some consideration. The Government aim to publish a summary of responses later this year, which will be very important and will provide greater detail about the views shared and the options available. I hope it will not be too long before there will be scope for that consideration. The Government will exercise due diligence in designing the enforcement regime and appointing a regulator.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that I do not recognise her description of the rigour with which I and other Ministers consider appointments to public bodies. It is a very serious matter; we recognise that it is a matter of people coming forward to help in the public service. I reassure her that it has no input other than that it must be done rigorously, and the right people need to be chosen.
The Government intend the fair dealing obligations to create positive change for the industry. That is why we are doing it and why this is such an important feature. I am very glad that the noble Lord and other noble Lords have raised this, because this is all part of the prism of this Bill. A lot of people are worried that we are talking too much about the environment, but a lot of the guts and detail of what will come out in the provisions of the Bill are designed to help the farmer in the great production of food, and so that we can help the farmer get fairer dealing.
I have a note relating to the remarks of my noble friend Lady McIntosh on the GCA launching its own investigations. The Groceries Code Adjudicator can launch its own investigations, if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a large retailer has broken the code. Again, I think the adjudicator’s work has been essential. I think and hope that, in the spirit of this debate, the reason the Government would at this time resist putting forward a particular body, however successful the adjudicator has been in this area, is that the best way to deal with difficulties in certain sectors is to work with the sector to see what is the best mechanism for enforcement. Let your Lordships be in no doubt that these are provisions that we recognise must be attended to, and in short order, because they are the way that will help the farmer in this situation.
In that spirit, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have come forward to speak tonight. I certainly appreciate the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in calling for the extension of the role of the adjudicator, and the various discussions with the Minister. I agree that the widespread experience of the Groceries Code Adjudicator should give rise to exploring how the role of that office may be extended.
I remind all noble Lords that agriculture can be characterised as unusual: it is almost unique in that producers invariably buy retail yet sell wholesale. I certainly appreciate the Minister’s comments and the gracious way in which he is going to include the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in further discussions. He has also come forward with a very helpful update on his department’s ongoing deliberations. I appreciate that the Government need flexibility to get the right solutions to each sector’s issues, and I look forward to clarity being provided in the publication of this consultation and to the debates we will have on that later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 68. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 32: Identification and traceability of animals
Amendment 68
Lord Wigley
“provided that those functions do not extend to a geographical area or species outside the original remit of that body when established.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that Clause 32, as included in the Bill, does not undermine the democratic answerability of the devolved administrations.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, once again I draw attention to my registered interests. The amendment maintains the theme of devolved consideration and is a simple probing amendment, which I suppose I should really have tabled in Committee. But I shall not detain the House for any great length of time.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Clause 32 does not undermine the democratic answerability of the devolved Administrations, which I am sure the Minister would never want to do. I shall try to spell out clinically the problem that this amendment tries to address. I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, notice of these issues to facilitate her response.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I declare my interest as a livestock producer from Scotland.
Amendment 68A in my name emphasises much the same point for much the same reason. I have considerable admiration for my noble friend the Minister, who, along with his officials, has laboured hard and finally found a formula through which it has been possible to get a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament, as well as other Administrations, for this part of the Bill.
My amendment reflects the fact that given the present political views of the devolved Administrations, the Government have realised that they must get devolved agreement. Can my noble friend the Minister give the House some idea of which functions the body that is being proposed under this power will be expected to carry out? When we found that we were going to have the chance to resume control of our own laws, many in the agricultural and rural industries hoped that there would be frameworks to ensure seamless regulation across our own UK market. The Government then found that these functions under the devolution Acts had not been reserved to Westminster, so it was possible to argue that anything which could be considered to be part of agriculture and the environment was a devolved competence. It now appears that what we have in front of us is as far as we can get by way of a framework, but any final outcome will be hard won.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has given a considerable description of the attitude with which these powers were received in the devolved Administrations. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I see this as an issue about the identification and traceability of animals being an area where the need for a joined-up policy is truly vital. It is an area where new technology is making an enormous difference to the capabilities of the information which can be included. Inevitably, it is triggering updates to the systems in the different parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just explained the situation in Wales in some detail, and I must admit that I am not familiar with how this works in Ireland. However, in England, the AHDB is now moving on to using electronic identification for all livestock. It is in the middle of setting up the livestock information service using a database supplied by a company called Shearwell Data which will hold all the English data. Quite separately, the Government in Scotland are introducing electronic identification for cattle; the system is to be called ScotEID. They already have a well-tried one for sheep which has been running for some years.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the tremendous trade in livestock within the UK, both north to south and west to east. A large quantity of cattle and sheep which have a Scottish electronic identity will land up in England and vice versa, and it will be the same for the other Administrations. The normal expectation is that their identity would remain on the database of their registration. The person buying the animals would have to know their origin and then have to input or source any relevant information from that database, perhaps at a different end of the country, as will the authorities if there is an issue with health or disease. Other areas of possible similar divergencies are in carcass classification and food standards. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has such wide experience in these fields, has to say.
Apart from all these complications, at what point do the Government hope to be able to have a comprehensive view of what is going on? Is this the final framework in this area, and what about other similar areas?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Baroness is not here, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, for introducing their respective amendments. These two amendments refer back to comments that I made earlier about the status of the common framework agreements. It is very clear at this time that this is a fuzzy area and it is not quite clear what the status of the common framework agreements is—and yet, in the very specific circumstances that both noble Lords speaking to Amendments 68 and 68A referred to, time is pressing on and we need to know how the different Administrations across the United Kingdom will administer this part of the Bill.
My question to the Minister is: what is the status of the common frameworks at this time? I understand that they have been reduced to 21, but obviously the process is ongoing. It would be helpful to know whether this level of detail has been reached in the current negotiations and how circumstances referred to in Amendments 68 and 68A can be avoided if at all possible.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I avoided devolved issues in Committee and was seeking to avoid them on Report, but I want to come in to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
I have a couple of points to make. One is a general one, and it is no reflection whatever on the Ministers on the Front Bench: the Government do not do devolution. My experience of that comes from 2010 to 2013, some years ago now, when I was chair of the Food Standards Agency and the coalition Government came in. It was quite clear that there was a major problem with their attitude towards devolution, and I think that has carried on. I realise that there are relations between Ministers and they talk to each other, but the government machine does not do devolution.
My more specific point is that I plead guilty on two issues, really. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board was one of my babies when I went back to MAFF, or Defra, in 2006. The merger of the six levy boards was done under my watch. Of course, I realised at the time that I was the English farming Minister, not the Great Britain farming Minister, and the issue applied only to England. Furthermore, before that—this shows, I freely admit, that as the years go by I get a bit out of date, and I have had a year when I have not been on the ball, as it were—the cattle tracing service for passports and birth information, located in Workington at the time, was a UK-wide body; indeed, we recruited Welsh speakers. It could be that that has been taken apart and is no longer there, but the fundamental issue behind all this is traceability.
One reason we do it is self-interest, but the reason we were forced to do it by the European Union, as it does elsewhere, is so that we know what animal has been where if a disease breaks out. The issue should not be one of a dispute between devolved Administrations not being able to access the information; it is absolutely fundamental that the traceability of animals, their movements, the feed they have had and other matters is available if an animal disease breaks out—I hope that it does not happen but we have to prepare for the worst—particularly where there is a transfer to humans, or indeed if it is widely spread to other animals because they move around the country, as has just been said, east, west, north and south, and that leads to real problems.
So, first, I fundamentally doubt that the Government really do devolution. Secondly, in an area like this, Clause 32 is quite specific that the Government are in fact taking on board UK-wide information; indeed, relating to Scotland as well. The Minister is going to have to explain exactly what the detail is in terms of the devolved Administrations and how traceability—and the way we need it to operate in an emergency, because it is always an emergency when you actually need it—will actually function.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are, again, addressing how matters might be properly devolved. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has identified some key challenges in his amendment, and the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is complementary to it. It seems to me that these amendments need to be taken very seriously by the Government, who need to assess the implications laid out by noble Lords.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
We might not strictly be noble friends but I am grateful to my noble compatriot Lord Wigley for tabling Amendment 68, allowing a brief discussion of how the changes contained in Clause 32 will impact on the devolved Administrations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker that, despite the better efforts of some people—Ministers and officials in his Government—generally people do not do devolution 20 years on.
I am also grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his Amendment 68A, which is designed to probe how these traceability provisions will work as animals or their meat move across the UK’s internal borders. I understand that, although agriculture might have always been devolved in a theoretical sense, the UK Secretary of State has, in many areas, tended to act on behalf of all four nations.
These provisions on the identification and traceability of animals are important, and I am sure that the current drafting has the approval of the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I will pass on the Minister’s earlier kind comments to my good friend the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs in the Senedd Cymru. However, I would be grateful to the Minister if, in her response, she could shed greater light on the points of detail raised by those who have tabled these amendments.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his amendment, and I am very grateful to him for his advance notice of the points that he made. I will deal with Amendment 68A, in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, at the same time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly observed, Clause 32 provides that the Secretary of State may assign functions to a body relating to, first, collecting, managing and making available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, and, secondly, the means of identifying animals. These functions are vital for the purposes of disease control, for complete movement traceability of all animals across UK borders and for UK trade negotiations with international partners. The meat and livestock sectors have championed this new service and are strongly supportive of it.
In Committee, we introduced a government amendment providing that the Secretary of State secure approval from the devolved Administrations for orders assigning functions exercisable in relation to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland to the AHDB, such as the handling of movement data shared with the AHDB by those Administrations. We have always said that we would engage intensively with the devolved Administrations prior to making any UK-wide orders.
The wording in Section 89A(2) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as inserted by Clause 32, requires the Secretary of State to seek approval from the devolved Administrations for making orders assigning functions exercisable in those Administrations. Where any such function is assigned, it will be following full discussion with, and approval from, the devolved Administrations. These discussions will give the opportunity for any further concerns to be raised. Therefore, any appropriate limitations on species covered or geographical extent for any function relating to identification and traceability of livestock will be specified in the order and, I repeat, subject to approval from the devolved Administrations.
Regarding how livestock traceability will work between UK Administrations, each Administration will run its own multi-species traceability service. Currently, there is a GB-wide service for cattle and a service for pigs in England and Wales, but in the future, traceability will be fully distributed. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board needs to be able to process movement data on animals that are not in England, or that have crossed borders within the UK, to provide a complete picture of an animal’s lifetime traceability in disease-control situations. This is termed “the UK view”. It will enable livestock identification and movement data collected by each Administration to be seen by others and to be available to veterinary officials in all UK Administrations. I hope that this reassures my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
I take issue with the assertation by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this Government do not do devolution. As the Lords’ spokesperson for Wales and someone who is proudly Welsh, I assure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that we pay careful attention to preserving the devolution settlement in all three departments of which I am Whip.
The AHDB will also run the livestock unique identification service on behalf of England and Wales. This controls the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. All data will be handled in accordance with data sharing agreements and protocols agreed by all UK Administrations. No Administration will be able to use data outside the terms of that agreement.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about the status of the negotiations on the common framework. In the last debate, my noble friend the Minister said that the UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Government, to develop a UK agriculture support framework. We expect to be able to agree this soon and we will update the House shortly.
I believe that this provides the assurance that the assignment of functions by the Secretary of State under this clause will be fully accountable to the devolved Administrations. With these assurances, and my belief that there is genuinely no clearing up necessary, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Northover and Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for their input in this debate.
Quite clearly this is not a subject area where one is seeking controversy; rather one is seeking to resolve a practical problem which might arise if it is not planned for in a way that avoids such eventualities. There must be clear demarcation of responsibility for all four bodies within the UK that have various responsibilities in these fields. They have to know what their responsibilities are and how far they go. To the extent that from time to time there has to be some cross-border activity, by the nature of the market, there must be clear ground rules on who does what and who communicates with whom.
To the extent that the Welsh Government have indicated that they see a way forward on this, that is fine, provided that it is the same interpretation on the other side of Offa’s Dyke, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to their powers. If we can get a situation in which it is clear to all what their responsibilities are—where they start and where they end—we can avoid difficulties. If we do not, we will find ourselves in quite a complex situation with a lack of clarity with regard to responsibility.
I conclude with this. There is a saying, particularly in the farming fraternity, that good fences make good neighbours. In this instance, there has to be clarity, understood by all, on who is responsible for what fence and for what function. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 69. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 34: Agricultural tenancies
Amendment 69
The Earl of Devon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove agricultural tenancies provisions.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 69 and 89 seek the removal from the Bill of Schedule 3 and the reforms contained therein updating the law on agricultural tenancies. This is not because I am not in favour of agricultural tenancy reform. To the contrary, it is because I do not believe that this is reform enough. My proposed amendments therefore form a protest and express frustration at the modesty of the admittedly sensible agricultural tenancy reforms contained in the Bill.
As discussed at length in Committee and on Tuesday, agriculture is key to meeting the nation’s net-zero carbon ambitions and assisting the Government to ensure that this generation hands a better environment on to the next. To achieve that, agriculture will need to change fundamentally. The biggest change will be to swap short-term profit for long-term sustainable investment and productivity.
The clearest illustration of this change is in the handling of our soils. The building of organic matter in soils, along with a healthy soil structure, requires long-term investment and a short-term decrease in productivity before any financial return can be realised. The same can be said of agroforestry, hedgerow management and any number of the worthy ELM schemes we have debated. None of this is possible if the farm operator enjoys only a short-term interest in the land.
The tenanted sector accounts for approximately one-third of our farmland, of which nearly half is now let on farm business tenancies. The average length of an FBT is less than three years, and 90% of all new tenancies are let for no more than five years. It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve both a sustainable business and a sustainable environment when farming with a three-year horizon. There is an urgent need to change this and to permit everyone who farms in the UK to enjoy a much longer horizon in which they can expect to reap the long-term benefits of adopting environmentally sensitive farming techniques.
This is urgent, and I am concerned that if we make do with what TRIG has agreed is possible now, we will lose the impetus for further reform for a generation and our agricultural landscape will continue to be blighted by a short-termism diametrically opposed to the noble goals of environmental land management, as set out in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to support the amendment and to speak to my Amendment 84, which is attached to it. My amendment is very simple; the words on the amendment paper spell it out. It is to ensure
“that tenant farmers in Wales have a mechanism to object”—
if they need to—
“to a landlord’s refusal to consent to enter into a financial assistance scheme.”
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her support for it.
The point is that there must be a system operating in Wales, and for clarity it should be included in the Bill that this right exists and that the responsibility lies with Welsh Ministers. For that reason, I am glad to speak to Amendment 84 in my name.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is not on the call, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Wrackleford Farms Ltd, a tenant farming enterprise. I shall speak to Amendments 81, 82, 83, 85 and 86, which stand in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for these amendments. I shall also speak to Amendments 69 and 89 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
In speaking to my Amendment 81, I speak also to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which will achieve the same outcome for Wales prior to it coming forward with its own legislation, as this amendment envisages for England. This amendment is a straightforward change to require the Government to come forward with the necessary regulations to allow an agricultural tenant to refer to dispute resolution an unreasonable refusal from a landlord following a request made by the tenant to join a scheme developed under the provisions for financial assistance.
While the Government may give an assurance that they will use the power available in this part of the Bill to bring forward the necessary regulations, there is no reason why the Government should not commit to doing so in the Bill. Tenant farmers are rightly concerned about their ability to access new public payments for public good schemes in light of their tenancy agreements and some of the restrictive clauses which they contain. Tenants must be given the assurance that they will be able to enter new schemes without the landlord being able to unreasonably withhold consent. The change which this amendment will make is entirely in line with the Government’s policy and should not cause any issue for them but at the same time it would give a tremendous boost of assurance to tenant farmers who are looking at the possibility of taking part in new schemes as they develop.
Sadly, there are circumstances where landlords refuse consent on an unreasonable basis for their tenants to enter schemes. Although it may be considered prudent for landlords to allow their tenants to remain profitable, it can sometimes be the case that landlords seek to use the leverage involved in having to give their consent to make unreasonable demands of their tenants, including surrendering secure tenancies in favour of insecure farm business tenancies, seeking the surrender of land, buildings or dwellings or merely to make the life of the tenant difficult. Having said that, there are, of course, plenty of examples where relationships between landlords and tenants are very good and where the changes being envisaged by this amendment would not be a risk to those good relationships or undermine what the parties are trying to achieve in those circumstances.
Amendment 82 closes a potential loophole in the provisions of the Bill around gaining the consent of the landlord, which is required to be obtained by the tenant in entering a financial assistance scheme. The Bill contains a relatively narrow set of criteria which need to be in place before the tenant has recourse to potential dispute resolution for an unreasonable refusal of consent to join a financial assistance scheme. The Bill envisages providing the tenant only with the option to object where the tenancy agreement or legislation governing the relationship between the landlord and the tenant restricts the tenant’s ability to participate without the landlord’s consent. However, there may be individual requirements set out within the financial assistance schemes which require tenants to seek the landlord’s consent. It may be because of the nature of specific land use changes envisaged by schemes being considered by tenants. Currently, that situation would not be covered by the provision in the Bill, and the amendment seeks to address that by ensuring that all refusals by a landlord can be referred by the tenant to dispute resolution on the grounds of reasonableness.
The Government may say that they will ensure to address this point in the way in which they design schemes, and I have some sympathy with that, but it would be better to have the provisions in the Bill rather than have to rely on individual schemes having their own appeal mechanism.
Amendment 83 would address specific issues around unreasonable restrictions within tenancy agreements which prevent farm tenants investing in their holdings to carry out activities or improvements which assist with the productivity or sustainability of the holding. This could include using the holding for non-agricultural activities which are in keeping with and complementary to its agricultural uses, which many farms want to do and which adds much-needed financial stability to those holdings.
Many tenants will have agreements which require them to seek their landlord’s consent for the installation of new fixed equipment or to carry out new activities where the requirement for the landlord’s consent is absolute. In these circumstances, there is no recourse for the tenant, who feels aggrieved by a refusal from the landlord. In that it is a point of public policy that farming should become both more productive and more sustainable, it would be an error not to allow tenants the same ability to fulfil those objectives as others. Of course, reasonable landlords will give reasonable consent for activities which improve the productive capacity of the holding and/or its sustainability, but, sadly, there are situations where such consent is not forthcoming. This is mostly because landlords are seeking to extract other concessions from their tenants, as I have set out previously. This amendment does not seek to provide a carte blanche ability for tenants to avoid reasonable clauses within their tenancy agreements, but it would provide the opportunity for them to appeal against an unreasonable refusal from their landlord. Indeed, this suggestion formed part of the recommendations of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group in its report to Defra in October 2017.
Amendments 85 and 86 would enhance the franchise of individuals who are able to apply for succession of tenancy for the limited number of Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancies which continue to have rights of succession. Where those rights of succession apply, a narrow list of close relatives are able to apply to be considered to be eligible to take on succession tenancy. Up to three generations of members of the family can be tenants of the same holding. The current franchise includes husbands, wives, civil partners, sons, daughters, individuals brought up in farm families and treated as children of a marriage or civil partnership, and brothers and sisters of the deceased or retiring tenant. However, crucially, the list of potential successors does not include the grandchild, the nephew or the niece of the deceased or retiring tenant, nor does it include children from a cohabiting partner of the deceased or retiring tenant. The amendment seeks merely to correct for those omissions. This is also an issue that was considered by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. It is often the case that the most appropriate successor in a family business is not to be found in the immediate generation but in the next, and there is no reason to deny the ability for the tenancy to be passed to those individuals should they also be able to meet the other eligibility criteria.
I strongly support Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as it seeks to provide a framework for encouraging longer-term farm business tenancies. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised, the average length of FBTs is under four years. With 90% of all tenancies let for five years or less, this is a crucial issue. I look forward to hearing what the Government plan to do about it and ask that consideration be given also to the taxation environment within which landlords make decisions about farm tenancy letting, as has been proposed by the Tenant Farmers Association.
Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is crucial to this legislation. FBT tenants should not be left out of the possibility of objecting to their landlord’s refusal to allow them to enter into a financial assistance scheme. Should my noble friend push this matter to a vote, I would certainly vote in favour of the amendment, as it closes a dangerous loophole for nearly half the tenanted sector of agriculture.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 69 and 89 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I cannot support the removal of the tenancy provisions in the Bill that those amendments would achieve. However, I understand and fully agree with his view that we urgently need a specific Bill covering agricultural tenancies. It could pick up on many of the issues already recommended by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. I urge my noble friend the Minister to give an assurance that an agricultural tenancies Bill will be brought before this House in the not too distant future.
I know that my noble friend the Minister is very supportive of the tenanted sector and highlights its importance to the whole agricultural industry. I thank him particularly for his empathetic engagement on this. It is therefore right that new legislation, providing security and stability to the tenanted sector, should be brought before the House. Although I am minded to test the will of the House on my amendments, I will listen carefully to what the Minister says before making my final decision.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Rock and thank her for her staunch and eloquent support for Amendments 87 and 88. Perhaps I may briefly address Amendments 69 and 89, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I have great difficulty with them because they would remove from the Bill all provisions relating to agricultural tenancies. That would be a very regrettable move. However, I support Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which is a mirror image of the amendments standing in my name.
I will address my remarks primarily to Amendments 87 and 88. Clearly, as I say in my explanatory statement, Amendment 87 would seek to
“bring into effect a legislative change proposed in the tenancy reform consultation carried out by DEFRA and the Welsh Government, which has not been covered by the Bill, to encourage landlords to let longer Farm Business Tenancies.”
I would like to draw out some of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Rock in speaking to her amendments as passionately and eloquently as she did. I am minded to press Amendment 88 to a vote, not on my behalf but on behalf of all the agricultural tenants for whom, I know, this is close to their hearts.
I have had cause to raise this issue at previous stages of the Bill and I feel passionately about it. I grew up in a part of the world—Teesdale, in the Pennines in the north of England—where the farm incomes are among the lowest in the land. The farmers there probably survive only because their wives go out not just to help on the farm in all weathers, particularly at lambing time. In normal circumstances, outside Covid, they also go out and try to earn a living to keep the family afloat.
The basis of Amendment 88 is very simple. It is to put the tenants’ agreements under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 on exactly the same basis as under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. My noble friend Lady Rock referred clearly to the devastating effects of moving from a secure tenancy agreement to an insecure tenancy, which do not bear thinking about in the present climate. Tenant farming is the bedrock of this country; it is almost unique to the English countryside. I remember so clearly from my years as a Member of the European Parliament how we stand out as one of the few areas of Europe with such a well-developed system of tenancies.
What I find so heartbreaking about the current situation is that the two Acts have not yet been brought together. To me, the provisions covering tenants under them should be absolutely as one. This is a highly regrettable situation. To be fair, my noble friend the Minister tried to go to some pains to put my mind at rest in Committee. Yet I find myself tabling the same amendment on Report, and potentially putting it to a vote, because I have not had satisfaction on this point.
I believe I am here as a voice for those people who cannot be represented otherwise than through our good selves in this House. I urge my noble friend to consider any reason why the tenancies under the two Acts cannot be treated in exactly the same way. It would be grossly unfair if any tenants’ possible access to financial assistance could be refused at the whim of a landlord. I accept there are good tenants and bad tenants; there are good landlords and bad landlords. But we have to look at the worst-case scenario.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, together with my membership of the National Farmers Union and the CLA.
I sympathise with, but do not support, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his amendments which would remove both Clause 34 and Schedule 3 from the Bill. Although, in an ideal world, the legislation on the reform of tenancies would be in a separate Bill, the clauses cover several matters that have been agreed by the industry through TRIG. So, if necessary, I would reluctantly accept Clause 34 and the schedule. However, what I certainly would not support—and I am afraid I do not support either the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, or the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—are Amendments 85 and 86 regarding succession on the death of an Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenant.
The suggestion that the rights of succession should be given to nephews, nieces, and grandchildren as well as partners and their children is several steps too far and begs the question, “Why stop there?” It would unnecessarily prolong the life of the AHA 1986 tenancies when we have moved on to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, along with a more modern and flexible regime for letting agricultural land, with the hope of bringing new entrants into the industry.
All these amendments would achieve is benefiting a small group of successors, some of whom might succeed anyway in view of their existing competence and relationship with the landowner, and others who might see it as an easy way to inherit an otherwise unaffordable house and a deceptively attractive way of life. It would also have the serious effect of depriving landlords again of their property rights and access to their own land for another generation.
Land could and should be freed up for a wider pool of occupiers under arrangements and agreements that are more flexible and more market-oriented and might help deliver productivity advantages. New tenancy agreements or share farming, as well as joint ventures, which are more collaborative, work well for new entrants and young farmers.
I am also opposed to Amendment 88 with its proposed changes to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. All stakeholders in the industry have expressed their agreement that the 1995 Act provides a suitable framework for tenancies in the modern era, with flexibility for the parties to agree the terms that suit their arrangement. This legislation has generated very little need for litigation or dispute resolution, and on previous occasions, all parties were agreed that the Act did not need revision or reform.
The amendment would create a situation where a recently agreed tenancy agreement can be amended in a way not foreseen or agreed to by the parties. If the parties are not able to agree on amending terms—an option that is, of course, open to them—to do this by recourse to an expensive alternative dispute-resolution process will have a very negative impact on that relationship and more widely on the landlord/tenant sector. It will undermine cross industry efforts to encourage parties into longer term agreements and possibly undermine the lettings market altogether. It is a different context to that under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 framework and will be counterproductive to the industry. It is also proposed in the amendment that the detail of how such a dispute would be resolved by secondary legislation be determined at some later point. This is very unsatisfactory.
Issues and factors like these certainly need to be further discussed and considered by TRIG before being legislated upon. The National Farmers’ Union has welcomed the reforms in the Bill but also urges that other reforms, such as landlords’ consent to variation of terms under tenancy Acts, are taken forward through TRIG. Please could the Minister consider separate legislation to cover tenancy reform issues that are not currently in this Bill on the back of the TRIG recommendations?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to participate in the debate on this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know of my interest in my family business, which is on the register.
I speak as someone privileged with “boys’ land”—they say this of the silts around the Wash. This land is ideal for arable farming, and we grow a diverse range of crops, from bulbs, in which we are prominent, to cauliflowers and potatoes. My neighbours are engaged in a great variety of different cropping, and this diversity —together with the marketing and distribution facilities —has encouraged field-scale horticulture similar to that in the Netherlands. It has also led to large-scale investment in protected cropping indoors and not exclusively under glass. I admit that this experience colours my thinking as to how we can raise productivity and harness modern techniques of scientific agriculture. It also colours my thinking about the role that the occupation and use of land plays in allowing a lively and prosperous industry.
I spoke in Committee on amendments covering tenancy issues and, in particular, about the value of cropping licences. I explained the background to my conviction that a dynamic farming and growing industry depends on having a lively market for land occupation to make this land readily available to up-and-coming farmers and growers. Schedule 3 is the product of the dialogue between the Government and the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, where different parties to this issue are seeking to find consensus on landholding issues.
Consensus must be the right way to seek to change something as complex as this. I might add that it seems to me that this whole Bill is about establishing a consensus on a path for agriculture into the future. It is with this in mind that I cannot support the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to remove Clause 34—and, with it, Schedule 3—of this Bill. I believe that Schedule 3, which his amendments seek to remove, delivers on the Government’s consultations in England and Wales and, indeed, on many of the recommendations from TRIG.
The Bill is not a root-and-branch reform of tenancy legislation. It is not intended to be. Listening to this debate, I am very much aware that many noble Lords are impatient for more changes. However, these modest key and agreed changes, which form Schedule 3, will help to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation and, more importantly, play a part in giving this key industry the flexibility to adapt to change, and this is why they should remain in this Bill.
Having said that, I hope there can be consensus on further issues that the UK and Welsh Governments will wish to discuss with TRIG to see what other actions will lead to a thriving tenancy sector. In turn, this will require further consideration by Parliament and legislation. However, as it is, Schedule 3 makes considerable changes now, and they should be supported.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, although I declared my agricultural interests earlier, I should specifically declare that I am, and have been, a landlord, as a freeholder and as a trustee of let agricultural land, as well as having been a tenant, both of family land and, until recently, some land belonging to a third party. What I found interesting and remarkable about the speeches on the amendment is that, while a number of speakers have taken varying stances, they almost all seem to be coming from the same general place on the map—as I do and hope will become apparent.
It is helpful when thinking about these matters to start from the original economic rationale for the landlord and tenant system. Landlords provided fixed equipment and the tenant the working capital. The parties negotiated around that and the farm business was put together as what might be described as a form of joint venture. The reality in days gone by was that the landlord’s negotiating power was frequently stronger than that of the tenant. This point was graphically drawn to the attention of the House by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn in his final speech on the Bill reorganising the composition of this House, some 15 or so years ago, in what I consider to be the finest speech that I have heard in this Chamber. The imbalance over the years has led to a series of specific pieces of legislation to introduce rules for fair trading—something that we have just been considering in a different context—into this marketplace. That is as it should be.
Too often, the debate is conducted in black and white terms, when it is in reality shades of grey. Landlords range from hard-nosed financial institutions and Dukes to widows, orphans and charities—for example, the National Trust, which interestingly is not always popular among its own tenants. Tenants range from huge farming companies to smallholders. Their circumstances are wide-ranging. There are good and bad landlords, and tenants who are exemplary farmers and some who are chancers and incompetents. However, both sides, whatever characteristics they have, ought in a free society to be treated even-handedly within the legal framework surrounding whatever arrangement they wish to put in place. While this may, to a degree, depend upon one’s perspective, the landlord is not, in granting a lease, conveying away his freehold or emotional and other commitments to the land. It is not the re-creation of some form of copyhold system.
A tenant, particularly when he also obtains a farmhouse, is acquiring more than a mere business asset but a home, and making a considerable investment in someone else’s property. This must not be forgotten. Questions around bare land may be different. On top of that, both parties may be investing substantial sums of money, and all this must be taken into account. There is a perhaps an understandable tendency, at least superficially, to treat tenants as good and landlords as bad. That is not, by any means, universally the case. I speak from first-hand experience on which it is unnecessary to elaborate further here.
The conclusion that I have come to when thinking about these matters over the years is that perhaps the best way to make a mess of the landlord and tenant system is to rewrite it on the hoof on the Floor of Parliament in an ad hoc manner. Rather, as a number of speakers have said, those in the industry should, from time to time, review the matters to find a middle way that, as far as possible, represents a compromise acceptable to all those involved. That will need to be led by some entity or organisation like the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, TRIG. Failure to do that will not only wreck a system that must adapt anyway to completely new circumstances as the output of farming changes but, as many speakers have said, but properly ensure fairness on all sides. It is certain that if changes are made in an ad hoc, incremental way, real injustice in all kinds of unexpected places is likely to result. I am old-fashioned enough to think that it is a matter that Parliament should do its best to avoid.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkeharle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. This is an important group of amendments, to which others have spoken eloquently. I added my name to Amendments 81, 82, 83, 85 and 86 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I congratulate her on her speech and agree wholeheartedly with her detailed comments.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, moved Amendment 69 and spoke to Amendment 89, which would remove agricultural tenancies from the Bill. I listened carefully to his speech and I am afraid I cannot agree with him. Removing reference to tenant farmers from the Bill because insufficient importance is given to them is not the answer. Tenant farmers are a vital part of the patchwork of agricultural holdings across the country. If they are removed from the Bill, I am unclear on just how we can safeguard their survival. However, I agree that three years is far too short for a farm tenancy business.
The amendments I will speak to all apply to Schedule 3 and would ensure that those currently involved in agriculture on a tenancy basis can function effectively. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, on financial assistance schemes. These must be open to all tenant farmers. It is unacceptable for their landlords to refuse consent for them to engage in these schemes. Those who work the land and do the back-breaking jobs involved should be able to reap the rewards. It is unacceptable for landlords to block the rewards, cream them off for themselves or alter the tenancies to the disadvantage of the tenant, as the noble Baroness indicated.
I turn to the amendments that relate to the rights of succession to a tenancy on death. Many tenant farms will be run by extended family members. For some, the nephew, niece or grandchild of the farmer will have been helping to run the farm for some time and see it as the only way they themselves can get into farming. It is therefore imperative that they should be able to succeed to the tenancy. They have experience and expertise, often gained over many years, and the farm will be in safe hands. Similarly, those in civil partnerships or cohabiting should be able to succeed to the tenancy where they wish to do so.
We have on previous days on the Bill debated the importance of encouraging new entrants into farming. To shut out those who wish to carry on the family tradition by refusing succession to the tenancy would be both cruel and unwise. These are the very people the Government should be encouraging to take up the reins and carry on. They are also the ones likely to welcome a move to a more environmentally friendly way of farming. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington: no one related to a farmer or his extended family could possibly think that farming is an easy option.
Lastly, I support the letting of longer farm business tenancies. In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to the woefully inadequate length of farm business tenancies of three years. This is hopeless for anyone wanting to plan ahead and make the best use of the land.
While I accept that short tenancies mean that others can come on to the land, it is not likely to encourage proper management of the land if, at the end of three years, the tenant farmer has to give up and move on. Often, there are no farms for them to move on to, as the popularity of pony paddocks means that some farmers have sold off land piecemeal for this purpose. A longer tenancy agreement is vital if the Government are to ensure that ELMS are successful. The Government cannot insist that it will take farmers seven years to convert from CAP to the ELMS system and then legislate only for three-year farm tenancy businesses. These are all vital issues, and should the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support her. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Tenant Farmers Association for its communications on these clauses. I also thank the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments for further consideration. They tackle many aspects of the two major Acts, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, following the Government’s consultations on their workings, on which there has been so much debate. I recognise the passion with which many speakers have spoken tonight. These relationships can certainly become fraught and I appreciate the experiences that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, shared with the House. It is a difficult and complicated subject that has been deliberated on by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group over many years. The Bill delivers on many of its recommendations, and the Minister will see that they are drafted to balance the interests of tenants and owners.
I understand that many of the amendments were consulted on last year but did not receive enough support and that therefore further, more detailed work may be required. I understand that there remains an appetite in England and Wales to consider the situation further before coming to a conclusion by the enactment of these amendments. The amendments are certainly important and have our broad support, including Amendment 88 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We agree that there should be parity between tenants under the 1995 Act and those under the 1986 legislation in objecting to a landlord’s refusal to enter into a specific financial assistance scheme. We wish generally that all farming operations, whatever the terms of their occupancy, should be encouraged to take up the various ELM schemes and make their contributions towards an environmentally sustainable agriculture.
We would also be receptive to the modern interpretation of relationships that could lead to wider inclusion in tenancies, in line with our general encouragement for new entrants to come into the industry, provided they can meet the various eligibility provisions. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, argues that these clauses should be excluded from the Bill, but we would not go along with such an approach. If improvements to the legislation have been agreed as part of the TRIG process, we would not wish to hold them up. However, regarding further amendments, we can see that these may not have received the more considered support as widely as may be necessary for enactment in the Bill. We await the outcome of a more comprehensive assessment throughout the industry.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, used the word “passionate”. It has been a passionate debate and I think that, whatever the tenure of ownership, tenancy or commonhold, the challenges of farming are very profound. Obviously, the Government need to work towards creating an environment in which all types of tenure are able to run a strong business.
Turning to Amendments 69 and 89, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, proposed that we should in effect decide not to take forward what we have banked in our work. The package of tenancy reforms included in Clause 34 and Schedule 3 were shown by public consultations in England and Wales to have broad support. They deliver on many of the recommendations from the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made that point rightly, because the Government have brought forward those recommendations which commanded broad support. These provisions will help to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation, providing tenants with more flexibility to adapt to change. That is why it is very important that they remain in the Bill, so that they can be delivered now.
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would like to see tenancy reform delivered through a separate dedicated Bill, and I can assure him and noble Lords that both the UK and Welsh Governments are keen to engage in further discussions with members of TRIG to explore whether any further actions may be needed to ensure what we all want, which is a thriving tenanted sector.
On Amendment 84, the tenant farming sector remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, and as we all know, a crucial element of agriculture in Wales. Within last year’s consultation, the Welsh Government outlined their proposals for a new sustainable land management scheme in Sustainable Farming and Our Land. It also consulted on a series of measures to modernise the tenant farming sector in the agricultural tenancy reform consultation. Policy development on tenancy reform remains ongoing in light of the consultation responses received and is being carried out in conjunction with development of sector-wide proposals for future agricultural support.
The Welsh Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that tenant farmers are able to access any new scheme, and their view is that a Senedd Bill would provide a more appropriate legislative vehicle for that purpose. Further consideration will be given to what provision is needed in due course. The Welsh Government intend to publish a White Paper later this year to pave the way for an agriculture (Wales) Bill to be introduced in the next Senedd term.
On Amendment 87, there can of course be benefits from tenants and landlords entering into a longer-term tenancy agreement. There has been a lot of talk of three years. As far as I am aware, the parties can, if they so choose, have any length of term they desire; in the same way as with arrangements with any other property, that is a matter for the parties. I was therefore a little concerned that there appeared to be among certain of your Lordships this idea that everything was for three years and there was no leeway. As far as I know, and from my experience, that is not the case.
However, when the Government consulted on this matter of longer-term tenancy agreements, the feedback gathered indicated that introducing shorter notices to quit would be unlikely to affect significantly landowners’ decisions about the length of tenancy to offer. Other factors such as the size, quality and location of the land, and personal motivations for owning land have a much greater influence on decisions about the length of the tenancy term offered.
It is also important to recognise that, while there are benefits to longer-term tenancy agreements, shorter-term tenancies can be more suitable for different business models. For example, short-term lets have been shown to be very often more appropriate for new entrants looking to rent land on a flexible basis to gain experience. They can also be more suitable for some seasonal horticultural businesses. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to work with TRIG on this important issue. That includes exploring how the sector can encourage more landowners to offer innovative long-term agreements to tenants who would welcome them rather than defaulting to standard short-term agreements.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their conscientious and passionate contributions. I did not expect much support but wanted to prompt some vigorous debate, which I am pleased to have done.
I pay tribute to the wise work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Rock and Lady McIntosh, in this area. TRIG deserves great credit for its tireless efforts, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we should follow the industry where we can. The ability of tenants to obtain access to financial support and support for capital improvements is important, albeit that I would note the need to maintain contractual freedom in such a highly regulated area. Increasing the opportunities for new entrants to farming via succession is also an important consideration—I say that as landlord to at least one tenancy that began under Queen Victoria. However, I note the words of warning from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about unduly extending cumbersome and outdated AHAs.
I have heard what the Minister had to say and appreciate the length of his response. I look forward to holding him to his assurances of further engagement with TRIG in the years to come. I agree with the need to foster enthusiasm among landlords and tenants with the increased adoption of FBTs, but preferably those that enhance the environment and our rural communities.
In three days of debate on Report, we have spent barely a late hour on agricultural tenancies. I believe this proves my point: it is not nearly enough.
Before I conclude, as this is my last appearance on Report, I thank both Ministers for their endless courtesy and patience with the efforts of a novice. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 70. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 70
“Duty to sustain the UK agricultural industry workforce
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the steps that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to take to—(a) ensure an appropriate supply of seasonal agricultural workers,(b) increase the number of people undertaking—(i) practical training, and(ii) formal qualificationsrelating to agricultural work,(c) ensure agricultural workers have sufficient access to—(i) financial advice,(ii) affordable housing,(iii) mental health support, and(iv) any other support the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and (d) ensure agricultural workers are subject to fair sectoral terms and conditions.(2) In preparing the strategy under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) other relevant UK Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers,(d) the Northern Ireland Department, and(e) bodies that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the UK agricultural industry.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 70 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee and we had an excellent debate, with considerable support around the Chamber. I was rather hoping, therefore, that the Minister would have heard the case and taken action to follow it up—but, sadly, that hope was in vain. So I now bring back a variation, which includes my noble friend Lord Judd’s very sensible addition of access to affordable housing.
Our amendment is fairly modest. It would simply require the Government to draw up and publish a strategy to address the concerns about the provisions for agricultural workers set out in the amendment. As we argued, the workforce will be fundamental to delivering the changes in farming practice envisaged in this Bill. There are about half a million people working in the agricultural sector across the UK, and their skills will need to change.
The sector is about to experience a huge transformation, moving from low skill to high-tech, and the workforce will need the training and resources to adapt to the new world. We already know that robotics, precision farming, and data capture and analysis will become commonplace. Add to this mix the new requirements to understand biodiversity, soil and plant health, and the operation of ELMS, and we get a flavour of the challenges ahead. The sector has previously been characterised by low skill and low pay. But now there is an opportunity to make employment in the agricultural sector an exciting proposition for younger people, but only if we tackle the structural problems that hold back rewards and make it difficult to have a career and a long-term future in the sector.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and those noble Lords who have added their names to this amendment, on bringing it forward again.
I would be interested to know from my noble friend the Minister what share of the workforce agricultural workers make up. My impression is that their numbers have declined quite steeply in recent times. If that is the case, there is a strong argument for hoping to maintain a sustainable agricultural industry workforce. Clearly, many smaller farms are relying expressly on family members, but we are hoping to rely on SAWS—the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—to help farmers and growers. I believe that the numbers are increasing, and they will make a big contribution.
I have a question that I would like to put to my noble friend, which I think was raised in Committee, although I do not recall the answer. Subsection 1(c) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 70 refers to ensuring that
“agricultural workers have sufficient access to … financial advice”.
The number of providers of such advice is quite large already; I do not know whether the noble Baroness is thinking of a new source. In our earlier debates on the Bill’s provisions, we discussed the proposal that financial advice be provided to those applying for the scheme. Under the new scheme, what financial advice will be available to ensure a sustainable workforce? Am I right in thinking that agricultural societies and charities might have a role to play in this regard, in guiding farmers to sources of income and providing advice for the workforce in this sector?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an absolutely first-class proposed new clause. It is completely rounded in many ways.
I want to deal with the first part of the amendment, which relates to seasonal workers. Again, I plead guilty because I have some history here. I realise that it means seasonal workers, and not overseas workers, some of whom are permanent—indeed, in many of our meat plants and abattoirs, their occupations are permanent. Returning to seasonal workers, we have a problem. I plead guilty to the fact that when I was the Home Office immigration and nationality Minister in 2001-02, it crossed my desk that we had to abandon the seasonal workers scheme because we were getting ready for the accession of eight new EU members in 2004, where we would recruit openly, and it was always known that Romania and Bulgaria would be ready-made sources of agricultural workers.
The one thing about the previous scheme that was almost unique was that it was based, in a way, on higher education around the world. We had, I think, workers from over 100 countries who came to the UK on a seasonal basis. I was told at the Home Office, “The thing is, they all went back home.” That was the whole point. It was very much based on higher education—they had courses to go back to, but Britain probably benefited economically for much of their time here.
Now, we are leaving the EU and we have not done anything. It is no good the Home Office simply saying that we have to recruit British people. That has not worked this year, notwithstanding the problem with the virus, and it will not work next year either. Therefore, it is not about turning the clock back, but we need a professional, strategic seasonal workers scheme. In many ways, we are unique in the things that we grow, in our climate and in the difficulty of recruiting our own people on a seasonal basis. It used to be easy to do in my younger days, as I know—as an engineering apprentice, I picked fruit in Scotland.
The fact of the matter is that we had a scheme that worked. As I say, the only reason we abandoned it was in getting ready for the accession of eight new countries to the EU—but we are leaving the EU, are we not? The point is that it was not that seasonal with the eight new countries.
It is not easy, I know, having been at the Home Office in the years I mentioned. When I turned up at Defra in 2006-08, I was on the receiving end, and thought, “Oh dear me, I made a mistake there.” Even though we were recruiting lots, we were still in trouble with the flexibility on our farms. We have now reached a point where we ought to have such a scheme. The Home Office should not be concerned or worried about it. All the evidence shows that it was based on higher education. The students were flexible; they were in different academic years and came from around the world, so they fitted in quite well. As I say, they came from more than 100 countries—and they went back home. The Home Office seems to be obsessed with people coming to this country and staying here. That is not what the scheme was for.
Having made that point earlier, I do not wish to say anything else except that I agree very much with what my noble friend said about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I absolutely 100% support the thrust of this rounded amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, as indeed I did in Committee. I thank my noble friend for being so resolute in standing by it. I express my appreciation for the way in which she so warmly welcomed my small but important amendment in Committee; it is now incorporated in the proposals before us.
The position on housing can be dire for those who wish to work on the land. It is simply impossible to find housing that is affordable. The absence of other public services and support services is a great hazard too because, let us face it, so much of the countryside has been turned into a middle-class urban extension.
Affordable housing is crucial, but the main point that I want to make in support of the amendment as a whole is that we can debate how we want the land organised, arrangements for ownership and so on, but in the end it is the motivation, quality, training and preparation of the workforce who are going to work the land that is crucial. This amendment is the result of an utterly sensible understanding that if we want to have successful agriculture, we need an enlightened, positive approach to the preparation of people, particularly young people, wanting to enter the profession in order that they may be as well equipped as possible to work it effectively.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is indeed an excellent amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the other noble Lords who signed it. It would make a fantastic improvement to the Bill and to the future of our farming industry because it takes such a wide-ranging and holistic look at the agriculture and land management workforce, including training, mental health, financial health and, of course, affordable housing. Affordable housing is hard enough to find anywhere in Britain, but on the land it is even harder.
Noble Lords know that the Bill represents quite a sea change in our approach to land management and is an opportunity to craft a much greener future. We need to train and develop what one could call a new land army to seize this opportunity. The future needs new skills, new knowledge and a new passion for our natural world. Without a workforce plan we will fail to deliver the intended changes, so I think the Government should embrace this opportunity and accept the amendment.
At the very least, the Minister should undertake to conduct a broad and far-reaching workforce review and planning process. I know that we keep asking for plans for definitive actions but they really are necessary and they are so lacking in the Bill. In particular, what conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Home Office about the post-Brexit migration system and the availability of highly motivated people from all over the world who would like to come to Britain to contribute to what I hope is going to be our greener farming system?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I have added my name to Amendment 70. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, laid out the case for it very well and I support her comments.
Both at Second Reading and in Committee, Members of this Chamber raised the issues of the safety of agricultural workers and their access to training. Despite safety measures, it is not uncommon for farmers to have fatal or life-changing accidents during the normal course of their working day. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to the levels of mental illness and suicide among the farming community. Training is important to help prevent this, and it is vital, too, to ensure that new methods and technological advances which could make their lives easier are also readily available.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, again, all the topics raised in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, are worthy of a much longer debate—no doubt at another time. The amendment highlights the absolute importance of our agricultural workforce. It is important to recall that, with the changes that have occurred and the way that farming is currently done, very often the farmer and his family constitute the entirety of the workforce, compared with the time when, even on smaller farms, many more people would have been employed.
This Government wish to see a strong and resilient workforce across both permanent and seasonal roles. This year has seen initiatives such as the successful Pick For Britain campaign, and Defra will ensure that we continue to recruit British workers into the agricultural sector.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we have held discussions with the Home Office. The seasonal workers pilot, held this year, has engaged thousands of workers to travel to work on UK farms, with 6,161 visas issued so far this year—that is the figure that I have with me tonight. The results of the pilot will be very important in enabling the Government to shape and inform future policy on the seasonal workforce.
It is a priority of the Government to ensure an agricultural sector that is not only successful and effective but one in which workers are treated fairly. Skills and training in agriculture will be of increasing importance to enable an innovative, productive and competitive agricultural sector which invests in people and their skills. The needs of agricultural businesses are always changing, and it is critical that skills providers can keep pace. This is particularly important as elements of horticulture and agriculture become increasingly technical and specialised, with advances in technology and automation.
In reference to a question my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked me, agriculture now employs 1.2% of the workforce. That is 476,000 people, 300,000 of whom are permanent agricultural workers—think what that was before mechanisation, when there were probably millions of people working on the land.
Training must recognise the role that advanced land management skills will play in this sector in future and further respond to any changes to requirements caused more immediately, for instance, by the impact of coronavirus. Work is currently ongoing to support this through the agricultural productivity task force of the Food and Drink Sector Council and the skills leadership group. I will send the noble Lord, Lord Curry, a copy of my remarks tonight; I much regret that he is not with us. This was an important point raised. This work aims to remove the fragmentation in the current farming training landscape. It will enable the industry to drive forward a greater uptake of skills, creating clear career-development pathways and promoting the sector as a progressive, professional and attractive career choice. Additionally, we continue to support the work of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, AHDB, which is creating new methods of training to assist in the recruitment and training of seasonal workers.
The Government also fund apprenticeships for training in agricultural occupations. There are currently 32 high- grade apprenticeship standards available in the agriculture, environmental and animal care sector, ranging from level 2 general farm worker to level 6 agricultural/horticultural professional adviser. Employer groups are working with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to develop a further seven standards. In 2018-19, there were 7,000 enrolments for apprenticeships in the agriculture, horticulture and animal care sectors.
In higher education, the UK is home to many internationally renowned specialist universities that offer highly technical courses covering food production, animal sciences, engineering and sustainable business, among many others. The UK boasts research institutions that are leading the world in understanding crops and livestock. I think particularly of the association of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, with Rothamsted as an example of the really outstanding research institutions on which we and the world will rely.
The amendment also raises the important issue of mental health. The mental health of all sections of the population, including farm workers and those living in rural areas, must surely be a top-order priority. I think we in our generation are all very much more aware of the imperative of addressing this than previous generations, which went through many travails. We are at last recognising and tackling this much better, but there is undoubtedly much more to do.
Defra has for many years provided annual funding to the Farming Community Network, FCN, for pastoral and practical support. The FCN has approximately 400 volunteers located throughout England and Wales who provide free, confidential pastoral and practical support to anyone who seeks help. The Rural Payments Agency works closely with Farming Help organisations to support the farming community in England. That includes having hardship arrangements in place for farmers facing financial difficulties.
Defra also supports the well-being of farmers through a programme of research and is carrying out an initial phase of resilience support through the future farming resilience fund, which this year is providing a £1 million project to provide support to farmers and land managers in England to help them prepare for the agricultural transition. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that, yes, the financial support includes business support and advice. The project covers a range of business and well-being support approaches and measures across different sectors and regions to improve resilience and mental health. Evidence coming from this project will help inform the design of a national scheme, which is currently in development for a launch in early 2022.
On rural housing, I think your Lordships know that I facilitated a rural housing scheme at Kimble many years ago, and it is an issue on which I place great personal importance. The Government recognise that improving the availability of affordable housing in rural areas is essential to sustain thriving rural communities and to support the rural economy. My aspiration of multigenerational villages is very strong. Between April 2010 and March 2019, over 165,000 affordable homes were provided in rural local authority areas in England. Additionally, local authorities can already take advantage of rural exception sites to ensure that affordable housing can be provided to meet local needs, including for agricultural workers. The revised National Planning Policy Framework also supports farmers, with new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm succession. Permitted development rights allow for the change of use of an agricultural building to a house. In 2018, the regulations were amended to allow up to 865 square metres of floor space to be converted, and up to five dwellings, an increase from the previous three.
I am very concerned for farmers’ and farm workers’ health and safety. The Health and Safety Executive is working closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including the NFU, to promote key messages that will prevent death, injury and ill health. This is an issue that the deputy president of the NFU, Stuart Roberts, and I, have spoken about at almost every meeting we have had. The HSE is working with farm safety partnerships of England, Wales and Scotland to help them drive forward the improvements needed in the farming industry.
I have tried to pick up the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Whitchurch, put into her amendment. If there are any areas that she would like to discuss further in terms of what we are doing and the importance of this work, I will be available to her whenever she wishes. I hope that I have demonstrated that in every sphere important work is already in hand. We need the skilled workforce and the right conditions for people to come and work in the countryside, now and in the future. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very interesting debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker that we have got a long way to go in getting the policy on seasonal workers right, despite what the Minister has said. We need a huge extension of SAWS. Every time I have talked to the Minister, he has said things along the lines of the Pick For Britain scheme being a success. There are very mixed stories coming out about that scheme, which was slightly predicated on using furloughed British staff to carry out that work in the fields, and that is obviously not a long-term solution. I hope that before we get too complacent about that, the Government have a proper review of the Pick For Britain scheme. To my mind, it was meant to be a short-term initiative. If it is to be a longer-term scheme, we need to look at how successful it has really been.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She is right, and although I do not know if “land armies” is quite the right phrase, I know exactly what she means. We need to bring it all together into some sort of workforce plan with a holistic approach to delivering on all of this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and other noble Lords, raised the issue of training; she is quite right to say that this is not just about the rather old-fashioned courses that we used to have at FE colleges and so on. We can do far more now in terms of online training, flexible training and training for life, because it is not just about going on a course for a year. It is something that should become absolutely integrated into our workforce activities.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 71. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 71
“Export of farmed animals for slaughter without prior stunning
(1) A person commits an offence if the person exports to any country outside the United Kingdom a farmed animal for slaughter without prior stunning within ten weeks of arrival at the place of destination.(2) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the export to any country outside the United Kingdom of a farmed animal for slaughter without prior stunning within ten weeks of arrival at the place of destination.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the export of a farmed animal from Northern Ireland to the European Union.(4) A person commits an offence if the person transports, arranges or facilitates the transportation of a farmed animal from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter, unless the animal is to be slaughtered in Northern Ireland.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a certificate to be issued on export to certify that—(a) a farmed animal exported to any country outside the United Kingdom will be stunned before slaughter;(b) a farmed animal transported from Great Britain for slaughter in Northern Ireland will be slaughtered in Northern Ireland.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (4) is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales to—(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks;(ii) a fine; or(iii) both;(b) in Scotland to— (i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;(ii) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or(iii) both.(8) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (7)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause prohibits the export from Great Britain of farmed animals for slaughter without stunning. It provides that farmed animals transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter must be slaughtered in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also in support of Amendments 72 and 73 in this group, which were tabled by my noble friend Lady Fookes. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, which I highlighted in Committee.
All three amendments would enable us to put an end to much suffering incurred by thousands of animals when they are exported for slaughter or fattening. In their manifesto, the Government committed to end excessively long journeys for slaughter or fattening, so let us take this opportunity to deliver on that promise and put it in the Bill. Why wait? As I said in Committee, exporting animals for slaughter is simply a welfare insult. In this day and age there is no reason why they cannot travel on the hook rather than on the hoof.
I do not want to reiterate all the examples we discussed in Committee, but I remind your Lordships to look at the figures. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that around 40,000 animals were exported last year. Of those, around 30,000 were sheep, with only around half going to the continent. Some were transported all the way across Europe to countries that have a large onward trade to the Middle East. The long journeys are stressful for the animals and in some cases result in enormous suffering due to, for example, overcrowding, high summer temperatures and injuries received en route. On top of that, they can end up in fattening or slaughter systems that would be illegal in this country.
I believe that even in this country animals should be slaughtered at the closest point to production as a default option, and Amendment 73 addresses this. I understand that it is supported by the BVA. While I understand that various options in this area are being looked at, I point out that Amendment 73 would not come into effect until the end of January 2023, which gives us time to achieve that. As this was in our manifesto, surely the Bill is the right place to move this agenda forward and ensure that it happens.
Amendment 71 builds on the debate we had in Committee. In addition to Amendments 72 and 73, which focus on slaughter and fattening, and restricting journey times, it would specifically prohibit the export from Great Britain of farmed animals for slaughter without stunning. It provides that farmed animals transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter must be slaughtered in Northern Ireland and cannot be taken further afield before being killed.
In Committee the Minister stated:
“The Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare. Although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs”.—[Official Report, 16/7/20; col. 1801.]
I emphasise that I too respect the needs of our multicultural society in the UK. If, as the Minister stated, it is our policy to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, as long as enough animals are killed in accordance for UK halal and kosher consumption, I see no reason for the Government not to accept this amendment regarding export.
Indeed, the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have highlighted that more animals than are needed are already killed without stunning for UK halal and kosher consumption so that they are more flexible for sale. Figures from the Food Standards Agency indicate that in 2018 more than 94 million cattle, sheep and poultry were slaughtered without stunning. In addition, a Food Standards Agency report last year highlighted that 90,000 of the 2.9 million non-stunned animals slaughtered for kosher-certified meat were rejected as unfit for religious consumption and went into the general market unlabelled. This needs to be addressed so that there is equality of choice and those who would choose not to eat meat from an animal killed without stunning can identify that meat.
The BVA states that there is evidence that non-stun slaughter is highly likely to cause pain, suffering and distress. More animals than are needed are currently killed without stunning for the UK market. I personally find the figures I stated shocking and believe that we should kill only as locally as possible and only what is needed in this way.
The amendment would not prevent UK communities eating meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs. What it would do is prevent British animals having to undergo long, stressful journeys to be killed in a way highly likely to cause pain and distress. Surely one of the main reasons for leaving the EU was so that we could put in place laws that we feel are right. The litmus test of humanity in a country is how we treat the vulnerable, and animals are surely among the most vulnerable. This trade is just utterly cruel, and if the UK wishes to consider itself a country leading in animal welfare, it needs to stop such practices around the export of animals now. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger most warmly. She has put the case on the various amendments powerfully, with great conviction and great compassion. I share her feelings and I hope this will not be lost on my noble friends on the Front Bench.
I do not want to add any more to what my noble friend said on her Amendment 71, except to point out that when the original exemption was made to allow religious communities with real scruples to have animals that have not been pre-stunned, it was never intended that they should be the subject of exports. I see no reason why unscrupulous traders should benefit from this so that they can send animals away to where pre-stunning is not so common. This ought to be dealt with very quickly indeed.
The amendment standing in my name and supported by my noble friend is a reintroduction of an amendment I brought forward in Committee to ban the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening. This has been a gripe and a passion of mine for many years—in fact, since I was a young MP in the House of Commons. That shows you how long ago it was, because I am no longer the spring chicken—probably some people would regard me as an old boiler.
I feel very strongly on this issue, but I have concerns even about my own amendment, because we have had to include a provision permitting animals going to Northern Ireland freely to go into the Republic because of the withdrawal arrangement. This worries me enormously, because, once they are there, they can then be moved freely around all countries belonging to the European Union. Although there are supposedly welfare regulations which prevent them travelling for too long, they are weak and not enforced, so you might as well say they do not exist at all, because that is the plain fact of the matter. I worry that those who still want to send animals abroad will use this provision as a loophole.
I became more concerned about this only very recently. I did not know that the Port of Ramsgate, through which most animals currently exported go, tried to ban animals passing through it. The exporters took the port to court and unfortunately the court found for them and not for the port. That indicates the lengths to which they will go. Therefore, I am concerned about the possibility of animals being sent to Northern Ireland and the situation being almost worse than that which we have now. That is something on which I hope the Government will reflect carefully. I hope that they will be able to tell us that they will come forward with some arrangement, beyond my ken, which deals with this situation.
The other amendment standing in my name, again supported by my noble friend, would ration the hours which animals can spend in transport. I accept that this is a probing amendment. I am concerned about the hours for which animals travel, which came home to me in Committee, when I was horrified to learn of the extent to which animals travel within the United Kingdom. I had not quite appreciated that, so concerned had I been about animals going abroad. I saw this as an opportunity again to take up one of the manifesto commitments on ending excessively long hours for animals in transport. I remind my noble friends of that commitment.
I accept that this is a slightly strange way round of doing things. Normally, if a Government were going to introduce a measure such as this, they would get hold of the “stakeholders” beforehand—I think that is still the fashionable expression; that is, those whose livelihood depends on farming and transporting and who might be affected by any changes in the rules and regulations—and experts, such as vets and key farmers, who understand all the details of what it means to transport animals and can bring their expertise to bear. It is quite likely that one would want different hours for different types of animal. We know that calves are extremely sensitive to travel and feel it much more—they are also much more closely affected by temperature fluctuations. It also depends on the vehicles carrying them: whether they are good, bad or indifferent. My proposed new clause would permit distinctions to be made, and there is also a time lag. None the less, I recognise that this is the wrong way around, and I am sure that people can pick every manner of hole in the suggestions that I have made. However, my main concern is to ensure that the Government get on with this and bring forward really good arrangements.
I understand that the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has done a lot of detailed work on this issue, so I hope that we can pick up on that, in addition to the point already made by my noble friend, that the British Veterinary Association has it laid down as a cardinal principle that animals should be slaughtered or fattened as near as possible to where they were born or raised. I look to the Government this evening to bring forward some real progress.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 71. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for the thrust of her argument, with which I agree. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—but not that she is an old boiler.
This is one of a series of amendments dealing with the export of live animals for slaughter. At the heart of Judaism is animal welfare and the very strict prohibition from causing harm to animals. The UK Jewish community has often raised the issue of animal transport, as it has serious concerns over both the length of time animals spend in transport and the conditions they are kept in during the journey. I stress that I know of no such exports from the UK for the kosher food trade, so I have no problem with Amendment 72.
In principle, I support a blanket ban on the export of live animals for slaughter. However, Amendment 71 singles out religious communities, such as Jews and Muslims, for no logical welfare reason. It suggests that only animals destined for religious slaughter should be forbidden from being exported, as if the method of slaughter makes the slightest difference to the animal’s horrendous journey. Furthermore, the standard of welfare at slaughter, with only very slight variants, is uniform across Europe as governed by EU directive 1099, which I understand will be retained in UK law post Brexit. No welfare benefits would accrue by preventing animals being transported for religious slaughter alone, travelling to France or other European countries, as regulations on religious slaughter there are identical to those here.
Amendment 71 seeks to claim that industrialised slaughter is somehow more humane than religious slaughter, and there is simply no conclusive evidence to support that. Just visit any abattoir—they are pretty horrendous. Stunning is an all-encompassing animal welfare panacea, which some hope will be unquestioningly accepted as such. We have had this argument often in this House, but in reality mechanical stunning methods, which may include asphyxiation by gas, electrocution by tongs or water or shooting with a captive bolt gun, cause pain to the animal. They also frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in even greater, prolonged distress. We have had this argument before on labelling an, came to the conclusion that we should label everything to say how it was killed. I have no problem with that.
Shechita—kosher killing—incorporates an integral and irreversible stun by severing the anterior structures of the neck with a rapid transverse incision using an instrument of surgical sharpness. I could go on at greater length about the methods but it is rather bloodthirsty, for the reasons needed to kill an animal.
Amendment 71 only seeks to stigmatise religious communities by belittling their legal method of slaughter for no logical welfare benefits. Yes, ban animals from travelling long distances. We should be against—as Amendment 72 is, quite correctly—sending animals on long horrendous journeys to be slaughtered by any method. So please look in the long term at the fact that we need to stop animals having horrendous journeys, so that what happens at the end of them is irrelevant because they are not being exported.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to be able to talk on this subject, and I declare my interest as a livestock rearer in Scotland.
This group is much focused on animals involved in exports, and I was thinking that many other speakers in the House today would want to comment on this. My remarks today are directed at Amendment 73—in the name of my noble friend Lady Fookes—in this group, which is, in the first instance, to do with the transport of animals within the UK. However, some comments inevitably will have a bit of a read-over to exports.
My noble friend Lady Fookes has a reputation as one of the foremost advocates of animal welfare in the UK, and this amendment brings forward a lot of proposals that would make life easier for animals and—if they had a chance of a practical outcome—might even make life easier for farmers. However, I will point out what seem to me like some practical difficulties. At the same time, it is proposing a very different world to the one that most of us see around us, and it would require a great deal of government intervention to bring it about. My noble friend Lady Hodgson is pressing the Government to do something in regard to the verbal intention they have given, but I feel it is a fairly big ask at this point.
My noble friend’s concept of requiring producers to take their animals to the nearest abattoir within 10 kilometres, unless prevented by a list of circumstances, has got problems, not least that in the last 10 years we have lost over 200 small abattoirs across this country. There has been some reduction in certain kinds of stock, but a major trigger was the regulations that were brought in from Brussels about the equipment and standards in abattoirs, and we are committed to maintaining those standards.
The end product of any of these units is a very perishable commodity, and I have no doubt that everyone is aware of that. The prices vary widely every year, both by season and availability in world markets. To limit farmers to only one buyer in a small abattoir is a recipe for commercial rip-offs. As a farmer in a mountainous area of Scotland that relies on sheep production, I say that we are only economically able to produce lambs in a limited season, and the net effect is that, at certain times of year, there is a huge flood of lambs looking for buyers, while at other times there is practically nothing that would keep the processing chain viable.
However, if my noble friend can achieve a solution to these drawbacks, there is another difficulty that is contained in her proposal. Due to a lack of small local abattoirs, farmers take their stock to livestock auction markets or collection centres, where the numbers can be combined to make the cost of haulage economic to an abattoir that has capacity for those numbers.
There is a difficulty in that all these markets and sites are regarded as agricultural holdings, and most of the stock will have come from more than 10 kilometres away, while all of it would be required to be held at these units for 24 days before undertaking a journey of up to 10 hours. This happens to be almost exactly the driving time from the two main markets of Aberdeen and Stirling to what is currently one of the main recipients of their throughput. It strikes me that the amendment as currently worded applies particularly to journeys starting in England; perhaps it is more than a coincidence that it has not described journeys starting in Scotland.
Unless there is a ready way of overcoming these major drawbacks, would we not make better use of this time to apply our minds to what would make livestock transport more bearable for the animals themselves? I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to one of the most distant parts of the United Kingdom. On the Islands of Orkney, animals have to be driven to a ferry, but they have developed pods for the animals on the ferry, such that the journey to Aberdeen is regarded as an animal’s rest period before starting an ongoing journey. This does not read over immediately to other forms of transport, but it shows that, with a little thought, there could be other solutions. But I am afraid that, with its present wording, I would not be able to back Amendment 73.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for a number of years in the 1960s and 1970s, I had the honour of representing one of the Portsmouth constituencies in Parliament. With a home in Portsmouth at that time, I was close to all that was happening. An abiding memory, which I cannot drive from my mind, is of the sheer dismay one felt at the noise of the frightened, uncomfortable, anxious cattle and sheep on the quayside, waiting to be transported to the mainland of Europe or elsewhere. It was a horrible sound, and it became all the more poignant because it was right beside thousands of decent British people setting off on their journeys by car, in comfortable boats with good catering facilities, for their holiday abroad.
Since then, having moved to the north of England 25 years ago and become very much part of our rural community—I live in quite a remote valley—it frequently strikes me that the contrasts are appalling. There is the beauty and scenic value of these wonderful cattle grazing in the fields. We know they are sentient beings. What fate is about to overtake them? It seems crucially important that, as civilised beings, we set the highest standards in these areas, and I am very glad to see that a number of your Lordships feel as strongly as I do, if not more so, and have taken the steps to give us the opportunity to support amendments to persuade the Government to give greater expression to our civilised values in the way we treat our fellow sentient animals, be they sheep, cattle or whatever. It will be a blot on our conscience—on our whole being—if we stand by while these appalling journeys are undertaken.
It is not just the conditions in Portsmouth, or God knows what conditions there are on the ship, or in what transport and for how far on arrival in a foreign country the animals will travel. It is the way in which in Britain we move our cattle about. They are sentient beings that have been grazing, enjoying and enhancing the countryside, but are then herded, full of anxiety and bewilderment, into vehicles that are driven impersonally. There is a lot that we can do to improve the animal kingdom for which we are responsible.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am full of admiration for the doughty campaigners who have tabled this little group of amendments, and I pay tribute to them. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on Amendment 71. It is misplaced and would open a can of worms if it were pressed.
I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who is a hands-on farmer, which focused on animals for export. As I said in Committee, I have had first-hand experience of this issue. My noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger referred to Compassion in World Farming, an organisation that I first came across in about 1994. At that time, a mother and daughter ran that marvellous organisation with the support of Linda McCartney, bless her. They engaged a lot of students to come along to the port of Brightlingsea after their success in closing down the Port of Dover to live exports. Brightlingsea took all the remaining livestock due to go to the continent of Europe. As I mentioned in Committee—I shall not labour the point—I boarded the ferry and saw the disembarkation of the livestock, mostly sheep. They were happy and extremely comfortable. It was stress-free.
I pay tribute to the role of successive Governments and this Government in making sure that we have about the strictest animal welfare provisions across the European Union—my noble friend Lady Hodgson referred to this—and we have been in the vanguard of that. Everything that my noble friends are setting out to do in Amendment 72 has already been achieved. When he sums up, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that this will continue to be the case in retained legislation after the end of the transition period. We have reached an understanding through the Northern Ireland protocol, and I should be particularly alarmed if we sought to reopen that. Potentially, with all the amendments in this group, we could open a can of worms that would lead to major unintended consequences.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose made a compelling point about the consequences of closing the abattoirs. More than 10 years ago, I was an MEP when the EU directive on abattoirs and slaughterhouses was made, and it was our gold-plating in this country that led at the time to their closure across the United Kingdom, with devastating consequences at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak because the livestock had to be transported for much longer distances than would otherwise have been the case.
I believe that we have reached a very good position under the rules that already pertain in the EU rules of animal movement. I would be very reluctant to see those reopened and, in any event, we are bound by the World Trade Organization rules that—I understand—prevent such a total ban on exports. I hope my noble friend will take the opportunity to confirm that this is the case. I pay tribute to the work that this Government, and successive Governments, have done to get us to this animal welfare state we have currently reached.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, on tabling these amendments. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that she still thinks like a spring chicken, which is very admirable. I would support these amendments much more strongly if I did not absolutely abhor the whole concept of live animal exports. That we still do this absolutely sickens me, and it is way over time to stop this in its tracks and simply accept that it is inhumane.
However, one thing that annoys me, as somebody who voted for Brexit, is that this was one of the common examples we were given of what could be achieved outside the EU—the banning of live animal exports. These were the sort of promises made to people like me, compassionate Eurosceptics who wanted the freedom to create a better country. We certainly have not done that. Unfortunately, like most of the nice promises made by the Brexit campaign, restricting live animal exports seems to have gone in the bin in favour of the nasty stuff, like restricting immigration. We listen to the racists and we do not listen to the people who care about animals.
Your Lordships’ House really ought to think very hard about these ideas. I was swayed by the points of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on Amendment 71, but I do support Amendments 72 and 73 because they would make huge leaps forward in animal welfare, and end the needless suffering of long, stressful and painful journeys to slaughter. This is one of the many things that people voted for in supporting Brexit. It is the will of the people and should be delivered.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, for tabling these amendments and enabling these important animal welfare issues to be debated tonight. I shall speak on Amendment 71 first, prior to taking on Amendments 72 and 73.
On Amendment 71, I accept the scientific evidence that the practice of killing by throat cutting, without pre-stunning, compromises animal welfare. This is also the view of the BVA. However, I respect the arguments of those who believe that the animal welfare concerns do not outweigh the rights of our own communities to religious freedom.
Government trade policy should refuse to look at exporting our livestock to other countries for slaughter without pre-stunning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so powerfully articulated. It is possible to take advantage of new trading opportunities that we are told will open up post Brexit without agreeing to export animals slaughtered without pre-stunning. New Zealand exports huge quantities of sheep to the Middle East, and all are pre-stunned with halal certification.
In supporting the aims of this amendment, I ask the Minister to confirm that when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said earlier today, in response to a question, that the UK is at
“the cutting edge of free trade agreements”
this does not include the Government seeking to increase trade through increasing our exports of farm animals which are not stunned before slaughter.
I absolutely support the principles of Amendments 72 and 73. In fact, when I joined the RSPCA in the 1990s my first campaign, and one of the proudest I have worked on, was on the issue of live transport. I echo all the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the number of animals who suffer and the quite unnecessary levels of suffering that go on, given that this is all about profit. While I support the aims of these amendments, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about concerns over the WTO complications. Equally, I think I am correct that live transport is a devolved matter and, as such, the Bill cannot make provisions concerning it for another Government. My personal understanding is that the Scottish Government oppose a ban on live exports.
The Minister might therefore say to us at the end that the Government are not able to accept this amendment. However, he can outline how they intend to tackle the economics that drive this trade. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reported to, was commissioned by this Government and the devolved nations back in 2018. It recommended improvements to transport journey times, ship and lorry standards and possible maximum journey times, once we leave the EU’s regulatory orbit. This approach would be WTO-compatible and achieve the same results as stopping the live exports, as it raises costs, and live exports only happen because of the economics.
When will the Government release the report from FAWC—now known as the Animal Welfare Committee —and, at the same time, undertake alongside it a consultation on live transport and exports? I would like to hear that it is an imminent consultation because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned, during Brexit we heard a lot about how Brexit was going to be about improving animal welfare, and live transport was an issue that was trumpeted. We have had that FAWC report since 2018. If we do not see something imminently—and I would expect that to be in the next few months—we can only assume that this is just another hollow promise from the Government on their commitment to animal welfare.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to speak briefly, but in doing so I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Baroness Hodgson, for these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reminded us, she has been a lifelong campaigner on these issues and I pay tribute to her infamous doggedness and determination.
Noble Lords will recall that I spoke in favour of similar issues in Committee, and nothing I have heard then or since has dissuaded me from my view that exporting live animals is cruel and unnecessary. The noble Baronesses have once again illustrated the appalling animal cruelty that occurs in long-distance transport, whether through accident or deliberate neglect. It is clear that the occasional stories which appear in the press are symptomatic of a much deeper and endemic problem.
In Committee, the Minister reassured the House that the Government are actively considering how to take forward their manifesto pledge to end long journeys for animal slaughtering and fattening, whether in the UK or abroad. We welcome that commitment and look forward to receiving more details. The Minister also warned that the issues were complex, and we acknowledge that. But I sincerely hope that this will not be used as a reason for inaction, as he can be assured that the British public have high expectations in this regard. So I hope he is able to reassure us tonight that progress is being made and that the Government do now have a plan to deliver that manifesto commitment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for this serious debate. I understand the sentiments behind these amendments. The UK already has world-class animal welfare standards that this Government are committed to strengthening. The Government have been clear that, as part of our animal welfare reform programme, we want to tackle the issue of farmed animals exported for slaughter and fattening. We are carefully considering how best to implement our manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for animals going for slaughter or fattening. I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in particular, given her commentary, that of course we are still in the transition period. This is not possible for us to do; we cannot do it at the moment—we need to get beyond before we do these things. But I shall say more on that in a moment.
First, on the amendment on a ban on exports of live animals for religious slaughter, it is a long-standing government commitment to respect religious freedoms and, although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat in accordance with their religious beliefs. The advice that I have received, as we allow religious slaughter in the UK, is that any justification for this export ban would be difficult to reconcile with our obligations under the WTO rules.
The Government are clear that we would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as practicable to their point of production. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that our view is that conducting trade in meat and meat products is preferable to transporting animals long distances to slaughter.
My noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson raised the issue of long journeys. The Government have a commitment in their manifesto to end excessively long journeys of animals going for slaughter or fattening. Two years ago, we tasked the independent Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now AWC, not only to look into controlling live exports but to consider more generally what improvements should be made to animal welfare in transport at the end of the transition period. We are considering carefully its report and detailed recommendations.
For example, Amendment 73 would make it an offence to transport farm animals for slaughter or fattening on journeys which are over 10 hours in duration. This 10-hour journey time limit would apply to all species. The AWC report, however, recommends species-specific maximum journey times. The 10-hour limit would be greater than the maximum journey time suggested for some animals in the AWC report—for instance, meat chickens and calves—but would be much stricter than for other species, such as sheep. The evidence suggests that sheep can travel for longer without an adverse impact on their welfare.
AWC’s recommendations also address a number of other important elements of animal welfare in transport, including the temperature and ventilation within the transporting vehicle, space and headroom allowances, and the specific issues concerned with transporting at sea. All these are important issues in determining the overall level of protection of animal welfare during transport. We are carefully considering AWC’s advice and recommendations, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that we are launching a public consultation before the end of the year on how—and I underline “how”—best to implement our commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening and on measures for improving animal welfare in transport more generally.
I say particularly to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose that animal welfare policy is devolved, and we are working on an animal health and welfare common framework with the devolved Administrations to achieve consistency across the UK.
I am grateful to my noble friends for their formidable advocacy and their care for animals. I assure all noble Lords that the Government will advance the issues and fulfil their pledges. I do not wish to be part of the widow and judge scenario. I assure noble Lords that we are moving to fulfil our pledge. I hope that, with those words, my noble friend Lady Hodgson will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this very important debate. I thank the Minister for his reply and also for the time and courtesy that he has given in talking to us before today. We really do welcome his sincere input.
I am glad to hear that this is work in progress, although I am concerned that it does not get kicked into the long grass and that it is always not now. I very much hope that the consultation will come forward quickly. We are leaving those animals to a terrible fate while we still allow them to be exported for slaughter—with or without stunning. We should be aware that, in doing this, we really are not ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare, as we have heard.
That brings to mind the saying popularised by General Morrison of the Australian army:
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”
This is a standard that I would feel very uncomfortable accepting, so I hope we will move forward quickly with all this work.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in good faith that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that animals do not go on having to be exported for slaughter and fattening. I hope this comes into place as soon as possible and we live up to our election manifesto.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 74. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may only speak once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 74
“Welfare of animals as sentient beings
(1) Ministers of the Crown and local authorities must, when formulating and implementing any relevant policy, have regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report explaining how the duty in subsection (1) has been discharged.(3) For the purposes of this section—(a) “animals” are any non-human vertebrates, any member of the Class Cephalopoda and any member of the Order Decapoda;(b) “IP completion day” has the same meaning as in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020;(c) “local authorities” has the same meaning as in the Localism Act 2011;(d) “Ministers of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; (e) “relevant policy” is an agricultural, horticultural or forestry policy relating to the treatment of, or taking action in relation to, animals or their habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause incorporates into UK law the principles of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which recognises animals as sentient beings and requires governments to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing agricultural, horticultural or forestry policies.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I believe that animals are sentient beings and that they feel pain, suffering and fear, as well as pleasure. This amendment seeks to incorporate into UK law the principles of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which recognises animals as sentient beings and requires Governments to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing agricultural, horticultural or forestry policies.
Noble Lords will be aware of much debate over this issue during the process of the EU repeal Bill. Since then, one draft Bill has been withdrawn following criticism from the then EFRA Committee and a second new draft Bill has been promised but has not been forthcoming. At the end of last year, a petition closed having secured over 100,000 signatures, backed by 40 NGOs and charities under the A Better Deal for Animals campaign, demanding that sentience legislation be brought forward immediately to protect animal welfare as we leave the EU.
I am proud of the high-level political support that animal welfare issues have in our country. In one of his first speeches as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said:
“let’s promote the welfare of animals that has always been so close to the hearts of the British people.”
In a letter from the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove MP, to Sir Roger Gale MP, patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, in March 2019, the Minister said that we will make
“any necessary changes required to UK law in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure that animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.”
In March this year, responding to the Westminster Hall debate in the other place on the aforementioned petition, the Minister, Victoria Prentis MP, said that
“the Government have committed to introducing new laws on sentience … We had an extremely clear manifesto commitment to do that, and I confirm that we will do so as soon as we can, but I am sadly unable to say exactly when that will be.”
The Minister also said, with reference to a number of concerns about Article 13:
“Frankly, it does not provide the sort of protection for animals that we want going forward.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/20; cols. 233-34WH.]
It is only three months until the end of the transition period. We do not want a gap in the statute book on this issue. If the Government are not happy with Article 13 as it currently stands, could the Minister inform the House when they will be bringing forward their own proposals? Will it be in time, before we leave the EU? If not, I am not persuaded that having nothing is better, and I hope they are willing to accept this amendment as an interim measure until they come forward with their own proposals. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support this amendment and indeed have added my name to it. I must say that I am blessed if I can understand why this causes so many problems to the Government. I can understand how the regulations about how many hours an animal should travel raise all sorts of issues, but this is a general statement and I do not see why it cannot be introduced pretty quickly. I particularly like the part of this amendment proposing that an annual report must come forward from the Secretary of State to explain
“how the duty in subsection (1) has been discharged.”
I hope that is not offputting for the Government. It seems fairly reasonable to me and I hope that it can be introduced very rapidly.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, again I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and thank her for having introduced this amendment. The amendment speaks for itself and she spoke to it well. In light of what happened on the previous amendment, I am sure we will get reassuring words from the Minister asking us to take them to heart and not press the amendment. It would be more convincing if a declaration of that kind, which I know he makes in good faith, were backed up with some specific indication in terms of timing—what will this mean and how speedily do the Government intend to act.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a number of noble Lords may know, I am a livestock farmer, and if you are a livestock farmer you have to try to ensure that the animals in your care have the highest levels of welfare. It seems to me that that is axiomatic, and I believe that, as a general proposition, it is incumbent on all us to treat animals of all kinds properly, whether farmed animals, domestic pets or whatever other category they may fall into. My concerns about the previous three amendments are that, quite honestly, they are very blunt instruments and I could not support them in the form they were drafted, for the kinds of reasons that were made clear by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the Minister.
I remember many years ago there was discussion, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, about whether it was appropriate to introduce the concept of sentience into the legislative codes of the Union in order to underpin and safeguard the position of animals. At that time, I am prepared to admit that I was unsure about that, but since then, I am beginning to think that I was wrong. I do not believe that animals have rights as such, certainly not in the sense that we have human rights, but I do think, as I have explained on previous occasions, that humans have responsibilities—indeed, they should be legal obligations —towards animals and that these should be enforced. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that something along the lines that we are discussing tonight, and was debated inter alia in the general election campaign, is appropriate, because it means that we can deal with these issues in a much more targeted and specific manner. I think that this would be much more beneficial, both for the society as a whole and for animals, than just simple, very broad, blanket statements, which is the approach that some people have adopted.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on Amendment 74 be adjourned.