House of Commons
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 2 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, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Last week, I published a White Paper entitled “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, which sets out my plans to crack down on crime and keep dangerous criminals in prison for longer. It signifies a fundamental shift in our approach to sentencing towards one that is fairer, smarter and, ultimately, better protects the public. The measures I have announced include the abolition of automatic halfway release for certain serious sexual and violent offenders, and we will also introduce a new power to prevent automatic release if a prisoner poses a danger such as a terrorist threat.
Christian Wakeford
May I start by wishing the Secretary of State a happy birthday?
The use of technology to prevent crime is developing rapidly. From drones and predictive analytics to biometrics, technology is helping to keep our cities, towns and rural communities safer. How will the Government work with expert organisations to ensure that we use the best technology to tackle crime and protect local communities from burglars and robbers?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to talk about changes in technology that can be harnessed to improve the way in which we monitor offenders and drive out crime. The White Paper contains important measures to utilise GPS technology. For example, we will use electronic location monitoring to track burglars following their release from custody. That will allow probation to monitor the whereabouts of an offender and, where appropriate, share that data with the police, which will help in the investigation and prosecution of further offences.
Simon Fell
Protecting the public cuts both ways. I welcome the plans in the sentencing White Paper to ensure that those convicted of the most serious crimes spend longer in prison, but given the impact of covid on the court system, those on remand face long delays to have their cases heard. What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have to ensure that those in that position will see justice sooner rather than later, the public will be protected and community tensions will be tamped down as much as possible?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend will be glad to know that, as a result of the hard work of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary, we are already reaching a turning point in our magistrates courts, with disposals exceeding receipts. In the Crown court, we continue to scale up jury trials, with more than 100 jury trials being heard every week in our Crown courts. We will have 250 courtrooms ready for jury trials by the end of October, which includes using existing capacity, with safety measures such as Perspex screens, up to 30 Nightingale courtrooms, experiments with different court hours and a range of measures that are designed to reduce the wait for the victims of crime.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his answer. Tragically, in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we are plagued with county lines gangs, who take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in my community. What steps are the Government taking in the White Paper to tackle county lines offences and ensure that these vile offenders are punished with the full force of the law?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the scourge of county lines. Like me, he will welcome the investment of £25 million by the Home Office to boost law enforcement efforts by not only local police forces but the British Transport police, who are doing incredible work across our railway network, which I have seen at first hand. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is currently revising its guidelines for drug offences. It is important to note that, among the plethora of county lines is the exploitation of vulnerable children and young people, and that needs to be fully reflected by the investigating and prosecuting authorities.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
May I, too, wish the Secretary of State a happy 52nd birthday?
Sentencing reform is needed, but on its own it is not enough. The truth is that most criminals will be released from prison at some point, and if they are not rehabilitated when they are released, they will commit further crimes and create new victims. This Government’s prisons simply are not working. Six out of every 10 offenders who serve less than 12 months in prison reoffend. A recent Public Accounts Committee report accused the Government of a “staggering” failure on the prison estate. Does the Secretary of State plan to publish a cross-departmental plan to reduce reoffending within the next three months, as the PAC recommended last week?
Robert Buckland
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.
The right hon. Gentleman can be reassured that in response to the Committee’s findings, the Government are working across Departments. I think that is vital, because he will share my belief and understanding that the Ministry of Justice alone cannot solve these issues; it takes the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care working together. That is why the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Committee, the crime taskforce, meets regularly. Indeed, on its agenda are our ambitious targets to improve offender employment and resettle offenders in a more co-ordinated way to reduce reoffending. He will see the results of that work very shortly.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The Government are determined that victims should receive the help and support they need to cope and recover during the pandemic. In addition to existing funding, the Government have provided £76 million to support victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse and sexual violence, as well as vulnerable children and young people. We have set up the victims and witnesses silver command, which consists of the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and others, to identify needs fast and deliver support to the frontline.
Mick Whitley
Even before the pandemic, young people often endured terrible conditions on the prison estate, and things have grown much worse since the pandemic began. Many young people have found themselves locked up in their cells for 22 hours a day and face-to-face learning has ended. Education and training play an essential role in reducing reoffending and improving the wellbeing of prisoners. Will the Ministry of Justice consider introducing virtual rehabilitation and education classes while prisoners remain under tight restrictions due to covid?
Alex Chalk
I was expecting a question about victims, but the hon. Gentleman rightly raises an important issue about prisons. The answer to the point he raises is: yes, we are doing it.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I am absolutely committed, under the oath I took as Lord Chancellor, to upholding the rule of law; the freedoms and protections we all enjoy rely on it, and as a responsible Government, we remain wholly committed to it. At all stages, as a responsible Government, we must ensure that we have the ability to uphold our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. We will do what it takes to protect the integrity of our United Kingdom.
David Linden
I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but millions wouldn’t. The Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales say that clauses 41 to 45 of the Bill
“enable Ministers to derogate from the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations. They represent a direct challenge to the rule of law, which include the country’s obligations under public international law.”
They are not wrong, are they?
Robert Buckland
With respect to those organisations, with which I engage almost daily, it is important that as a result of any potential conflict that might occur between domestic and international law, we make provisions as a responsible Government to prepare for the worst. That is the honest and upfront approach, as opposed to confession and avoidance in the event of any international dispute. Members must remember the context: these powers will be triggered only if there is a material breach by the EU, and we have set out examples on the Government website.
Anna McMorrin
May I wish the Secretary of State a happy birthday? He will be delighted to know that he shares his birthday with my little dog, who is two today.
Mr Speaker,
“the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation and puts its future at risk.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 668.]
Not my words, but those of the former Conservative Prime Minister just yesterday in this House. With the Government ready to break international law, can the Secretary of State please explain to my constituents in Cardiff North why there is one rule for them and another for this Government?
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks.
Attractive and charismatic though the hon. Lady’s remarks might sound, they do not bear any scrutiny at all. The reality is that we are preparing for a situation that we do not wish to come about. It would have been far easier for us to ignore the matter and kick the can down the road, but it is far better to be upfront about the potential dispute. I hope and expect that it will never come, because we will get the deal and the Joint Committee will resolve its deliberations accordingly.
Marion Fellows [V]
May I also wish the Lord Chancellor a happy birthday? With age may come wisdom.
The Lord Chancellor has said that he will resign only if the Government break the law in a way that is unacceptable. Thousands of ordinary members of the public were fined for breaking lockdown regulations, while Dominic Cummings did so with impunity. Can the Lord Chancellor explain to those people what criteria he uses to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable breaches of the law?
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. The issue is very straightforward. If we are in a position where the EU has acted in material breach of its own treaty obligations, meaning that acts to the active prejudice of the United Kingdom are being occasioned, then we will act.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I also wish the Lord Chancellor a happy birthday. I calculate that I have known him for about half his life. Throughout that time, I have never had the slightest doubt as to his integrity and his commitment to the rule of law. Does he accept that the important changes that the Government accepted in the course of the Committee stage yesterday would not have happened without some pressure from the Back Benches, and without his very close personal and direct involvement in making changes to the Bill and to the test that the Government will apply. That was precisely because he, I and many others are committed to the rule of law. Ad hominem attacks to the contrary are unworthy and unjustified.
Robert Buckland
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to remind us that personal attacks are no substitute for real debate. What he has done, and what I have sought to do, is, at all times, to make sure that we find a way through these problems. Brexit has thrown up unprecedented challenges to a Government in peacetime. I never pretended that it was going to be anything other than a difficult road. He shares that view and, through his constructive work and the work that I and others have done, this House has a lock on these matters, and, indeed, I think the way is much clearer and much more satisfactory.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On 30 July 2019, in the Royal Courts of Justice, the Lord Chancellor made an oath that no other member of the Cabinet is required to make. He said:
“I do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law”.
Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, and Jonathan Jones, head of the Government’s Legal Department, resigned because the Government’s internal markets Bill does not respect the rule of law. May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether he thinks that Lord Keen and Jonathan Jones got it wrong and, if so, how? If not, may I ask him how he can turn up in this House with a straight face after voting to betray his oath and break the law?
Robert Buckland
That is a very serious allegation to make. I took that oath in English and Welsh—I took it twice—and I believe in it in both languages, indeed in any language. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. As he has just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), I have done everything that I possibly can consistent with that oath to make sure that this Government act in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. That is what is happening. This House is directly involved, quite properly, in these serious deliberations. Amendments are being made to this Bill as we speak, and the contingency in which these exceptional provisions are to be used has been clearly set out. These are unprecedented times. We do not want to see a breach in any obligations either by us or by the EU, but it would be irresponsible if we did not make those necessary preparations. That is why I am here, and that is why I will continue to be here as long as I feel able to discharge my oath, and I can tell him that, thus far, I feel very able to discharge my oath.
Mr Lammy
It is not me who takes that view. Every living Prime Minister takes that view. The Bar Council and the Law Society take that view. The Lord Chancellor previously said that the Government can indeed break the law if it can be fudged, but there is no fudging this—not only does the Bill breach the international law, it is also a flagrant attack on the rule of law at domestic level, and he knows it. As the Bingham Centre states, clauses 42, 43 and 45 authorise a breach of any relevant international or domestic law, including any order, judgment or decision of any international or domestic court. I say to the Lord Chancellor that he is an esteemed barrister and he swears to a code of conduct. Does he not now risk bringing the profession into disrepute by breaching that code of conduct, which states:
“You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession”?
Robert Buckland
I really find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman brings the code of conduct into these matters. Like him, I am acting as a Member of Parliament. I am acting as a Minister in the Government—[Interruption.] I am not a Law Officer; I am the Lord Chancellor. The Law Officers of this country are the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland. I do not give legal advice to the Government. I am not a Law Officer.
However, every member of the Government is obliged to follow the rule of law. It is very clear. I take a particular oath to uphold that and to defend the judiciary. As I have explained, I have absolutely no qualms about what has been happening. I have worked extremely hard to make sure that this House is fully involved. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the idea that the passage of this Bill is a breach of UK domestic law is just plain wrong, and to misquote me is unhelpful, misleading and damaging, frankly.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Bill affords the United Kingdom Government the power to breach obligations that they freely entered into less than a year ago, rather than employ the dispute mechanism that they agreed to. When Lord Keen resigned as Advocate General, he wrote to the Prime Minister that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile what he considered to be his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions. The highly respected former Attorney General the right hon. Dominic Grieve has said that the Lord Chancellor’s position is even more clear cut than that of the Law Officers, and that the Lord Chancellor has taken
“an oath of office to uphold or protect the rule of law. The rule of law includes international law…his position is untenable.”
Are both these senior distinguished QCs, Lord Keen and Dominic Grieve, wrong? If not, why is the Lord Chancellor still in office?
Robert Buckland
The hon. and learned Lady is right to draw attention to Lord Keen. I pay tribute to his long service in the Government as Advocate General for Scotland, and I was sorry to hear of his resignation. I do not believe that it was necessary, bearing in mind the important changes that have been made to the Bill.
I think that the position is now very clear. The hon. and learned Lady talks of breach, but as I will remind the House again, the eventuality or potential use of these clauses would be only if the EU was in material breach of its obligations, and therefore we would be facing a breakdown. I remind her again that of course we will use the withdrawal agreement mechanism and the arbitral mechanisms within the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, and indeed the Northern Ireland protocol, too. It is not a question of us abandoning our obligations; we will use them, but this is the “break glass in case of emergency” provision that underlies and will protect the United Kingdom’s position if we face such a breakdown.
Joanna Cherry
Lord Keen’s resignation was in keeping with the highest traditions of the Scottish Bar. The Lord Chancellor has said that he wants us to consider his own actions as an MP and a Minister rather than as a lawyer, so I put this to him. In 2018, in the Gulf case, England’s Court of Appeal ruled that a Government Minister’s overarching duty to comply with the law includes international law and treaty obligations, even though these are no longer explicitly stated in the ministerial code. This Bill gives the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers the power to run a coach and horses through their obligations under the withdrawal agreement. I know that Conservative Members do not like hearing that, but that is the reality. In the light of what the English Court of Appeal has said, just how is this Bill compatible with his oath as the Lord Chancellor to uphold the rule of law?
Robert Buckland
As I have said to the hon. and learned Lady, the contingency that underlines the coming into force and use of these powers is a very narrowly and clearly delineated one. I do not believe, as I have said in public, that we are at that stage, and I do not believe we will get to that stage, if both parties renew their efforts, act in good faith and double down on making sure that we get a resolution. It would have been far easier for us to avoid the issue, to pretend that there was not going to be a problem, and then to hit the new year with an avalanche of difficulties when it came to Northern Ireland and its relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. Members of this House would have rightly criticised us, and, frankly, we would have been in an indefensible position. This is a tortuous process. I reject her allegations—her assertions. We will continue to govern responsibly and consistent with our obligations under the rule of law.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I am delighted to report to the House that the recovery of our court system following the coronavirus pandemic is very well under way. The magistrates court is recovering strongly. Disposals last week exceeded 21,000, which is more than the number of receipts, and therefore the outstanding caseload went down, as it has gone down for each of the past five weeks. In relation to the Crown court, the recovery of jury trials continues strongly, and last week over 100 were held.
Stephanie Peacock
The majority of court cases have been moved from Barnsley and are taking place in Sheffield, increasing the likelihood of losing witnesses and, in some cases, victims. Prosecutions are already at record lows thanks to this Government’s record on law and order. Does the Minister accept that drastic measures need to be taken to reduce the backlog of cases and increase access to justice?
Chris Philp
Drastic measures are being taken. We have recently invested £153 million to improve court buildings. We have just invested, in the past few weeks, an extra £80 million to support criminal courts, including the recruitment of 1,600 extra HMCTS staff. In addition to that, we have opened 10 emergency Nightingale courts with 16 courtrooms, and a further eight such Nightingale courts with 13 courtrooms will be opened in the course of September and October. The steps that that hon. Lady is calling for have been and are being taken.
Kerry McCarthy
From next week, the maximum period that someone can spend in pre-trial custody for Crown court cases will be increased to 238 days. I am particularly concerned that this includes children, as well as adults, on remand. At the moment in the prison estate, there is a higher proportion of children on remand among children in custody than there has been for a decade. What can we do to make sure that juveniles, in particular, get a speedy hearing and do not spend so much time in custody when they may very well be innocent?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to custody time limits. Of course we want to get cases heard as quickly as possible because people on remand may well be found not guilty subsequently. I do agree with her sentiments about children. I know that when judges look at listing cases, they are very mindful of that. By the end of October, we will have 250 Crown court jury trial rooms operating, which will enable us to really get through these cases as quickly as we possibly can.
Gareth Thomas
Shopworkers have faced rising violence in recent years, and yet too often the perpetrators are not being brought to justice, partly, at the moment, because of lengthy backlogs in court hearings. Industry experts, business and trade unions are all calling for greater legal protection for shopworkers and for more investment in the court system. When are Ministers going to listen?
Chris Philp
Ministers have listened. I have already explained that we have just announced an extra £80 million to support court recovery, on top of the £153 million to improve the court estate just a short time ago. As regards sentencing, the hon. Member will, I am sure, welcome the sentencing White Paper published last week, which imposes tougher penalties on serious offenders and keeps them in prison for longer. He mentions outstanding caseloads. I would remind him that the outstanding caseload in the Crown court, even with coronavirus, is lower today than it was in 2010, so we have managed to run the court system more effectively with coronavirus than the last Labour Government did without it.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister outlines a different picture from that outlined by the Bar Council, which I met last week. It told me that covid-compliant courts throughout the country are running under capacity. Even after yesterday’s announcement, only a handful of the promised 200 Nightingale courts are in place. Magistrate numbers have halved since 2012, and there is a huge shortage of judges. Court listings are in chaos, with trial dates being set way into 2022. To top it all off, HMCTS is the only Government agency for which there is still no covid risk-assessment template agreed with PCS. The Lord Chancellor said he was looking forward to the spending review with relish; I sincerely hope that means that proper funding is on the way. When can we expect this mess to be sorted out and the buckling court system fixed, so that it can deliver for those it serves and employs?
Chris Philp
I have already pointed out that the Crown court case load is lower today than it was in 2010 under the Labour Government. I have also pointed out that the magistrates courts, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are disposing of more cases now than they are receiving: the backlog, or the case load, is going down and has been for each and every one of the past five weeks. The hon. Gentleman mentions custody and the time until hearings; in August, 84% of Crown court cases for which the defendant was in custody were listed for trial before February next year. We are working at pace and investing at pace. The recovery of our criminal justice system after this coronavirus epidemic is well and truly under way.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Levels of violence in our prisons remain too high, but I am pleased to say that we are on a downward trend in respect of assaults. In January to March this year, assaults on staff decreased by 5% on the three previous quarter, and in the latest quarter the number of assaults on staff decreased by a further 4%. Decreases have been seen across the public and private estate. We have also seen a net rise of almost 4,000 prison officers in bands 3 to 5 since 2016. We do not hold figures for the number of staff at private prisons as we measure performance in a different way.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Minister for that response. I had hoped that even this Government would accept the link between prison understaffing and high levels of violence. Why are the Government building a new generation of private prisons that will have no minimum staffing levels and no requirements for private operators to reveal staff numbers as they will not be subject to freedom of information requests? Frankly, this is an appalling policy of “Don’t ask me any questions and I won’t tell you any lies.”
Lucy Frazer
As I mentioned, we have increased the number of staff in the public sector. We have also introduced the key worker scheme, which is essential for staff to liaise with the prisoners. Private prisons perform well, as do public prisons. Recent reports from this year for HMP Parc and HMP Rye Hill, which are both managed by G4S, judged both to be good. There is not a mantra that public is good, private is bad; both work well.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Reoffending rates are too high, resulting in some individuals repeatedly posing a danger to their communities and the undermining of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Last week, we published the sentencing White Paper, which sets out measures to better supervise and support offenders following their release from custody. It includes proposals for changes to the rehabilitation periods set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, to improve access to employment and education for those with criminal records.
Rob Butler
I recently visited MTCnovo’s hub for offenders from Aylesbury and was impressed by the dedication and commitment of the staff, as well as of those completing their sentences there. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a vital element of reducing reoffending is having enough well-trained and skilled probation officers who can thoroughly oversee and supervise sentences?
Lucy Frazer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I thank all the staff at MTCnovo and Thames Valley community rehabilitation company. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that dedicated prison officers are a key part of reducing reoffending, which is why last month we launched the probation workforce strategy, setting out our commitment to recruit an additional 1,000 probation officers by the end of January next year. It is about not just recruiting staff but how we work with them and invest in their skills. We will be focusing on their skills, recruitment, retention, diversity, leadership and wellbeing.
Mark Fletcher
Communities across the Bolsover constituency are desperate to see serial reoffenders punished, and that requires a level of innovation. What innovative approaches to reoffending is the Department taking?
Lucy Frazer
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question on innovation. Our sentencing White Paper sets out a number of innovative ways of reducing reoffending, and I will mention just two. First, my hon. Friend mentioned prolific offenders, and we would like to deal with prolific burglars by tagging them so that when we release them from prison, we know where they go and prevent them from committing further acquisitive crime. Secondly, we want to help people turn their lives around through community treatment programmes, ensuring that offenders get the support—including the drug addiction treatment and mental health support—they need to enable them to turn their backs on crime.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am very aware of the difficulties that many children in custody have faced over the covid period. I recently had a remote meeting with all the governors of the youth estate to discuss the impact of covid on young people in custody. As a result of that discussion and what we have heard, we have prioritised and focused on ensuring a return to face-to-face education and social visits, which are vital to young people’s mental health. I am pleased to say that we have already recommenced both of those across the youth estate.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member is absolutely right to focus on the importance of education. It is something that the Government have prioritised for the community as a whole, and it is absolutely right that we mirror that in our youth custody estate. That is why we have prioritised education in the youth estate as against the adult estate in the first stage of opening up, and it is why all such institutions are now open. We are looking at lessons learned. As we plan for the next phase of restrictions and closures in the community, we will be looking carefully and closely at how we deal with education.
Mrs Lewell-Buck [V]
Despite Ministers’ previous answers to my hon. Friends, throughout the pandemic the Government have actively supported children in prison being locked in their cells for over 23 hours a day, with their education and therapy sessions cancelled and family visits stopped. Does the Minister feel that these criminal measures have helped or hindered their rehabilitation?
Lucy Frazer
I would like to clarify what the hon. Lady has said. We have not actively supported the lockdown; when we went into the pandemic, we were told by Public Health England that we were potentially facing 2,500 deaths in our prisons, and we rightly took action very quickly to stem that. Every death is tragic, but I am very pleased that, through our efforts, we only had 23 deaths. The problems in the youth estate are very different, but, equally, we did not want transmission among users and staff, leading to the NHS becoming overwhelmed and staff getting sick, so we took measures that were appropriate at the time. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), we absolutely recognise the importance of education. It is something that we are prioritising and have prioritised, and we will continue to do so.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is good news that in the years approaching covid, the number of young people required to attend court fell by 10,000, but the bad news is that the backlog of young people requiring justice—their day in court—stayed the same over the same period. If Ministers lack the competence to end the backlog at a time when demand is falling by a third, what hope is there of the Government getting a grip in the challenging times ahead?
Lucy Frazer
It is vital that we manage the backlog in the courts, and we are doing so across Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. I am looking closely at the youth estate because it is vital that we ensure that the youth—who are particularly vulnerable and who cannot do as many remote hearings as those in the adult estate—get justice and get it swiftly. We have opened up a number of youth courts and are working hard to ensure that youth justice continues.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am very pleased to have spoken regularly to the hon. Lady about residential women’s centres, which are a vital part of the female offender strategy. Her question is about the resettlement of women leaving prison. I hope she is aware that we invested an additional £22 million a year over the remaining life of the community rehabilitation company contracts to deliver an enhanced through-the-gate resettlement service. We also have specific funding for women—we are putting £5 million into community services that help female offenders to address the underlying causes of their criminality—and we recently invested a further £2.5 million to assist in further supporting female offenders. That is currently being distributed via a funding competition, which opened on 6 July.
Carolyn Harris
The independent monitoring board recently reported that almost 60% of female prisoners are leaving prison to homelessness, which overwhelmingly leads to reoffending. To give these women a chance in life we need an effective through-the-gate strategy, including community support and adequate housing, so can we expect the autumn statement to deliver extra resources to allow that to happen?
Lucy Frazer
Our statistics are that 4.2% of the female prison releases were to rough sleeping and 14% were released as “other homeless”, but the numbers, whatever they are, are too high. The hon. Lady rightly identifies that we are talking to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and that a spending review is coming up; Members will have heard the Lord Chancellor talking about our absolute commitment, and we will be looking at a number of things—education, employment and tackling homelessness on release.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I hugely value the work of criminal defence lawyers, who play a vital role in upholding the rule of law, testing prosecution evidence and ensuring that the innocent walk free. To support the profession through the pandemic, we sought to improve the cash flow for it by making it easier to draw down payment for work already collected, halting the collection of debt by the Legal Aid Agency and relaxing LAA contract requirements to ensure that more staff can be furloughed.
Gareth Bacon
According to Government figures, in 2010-11 there were 1,861 firms with criminal legal aid contracts, whereas now there are only 1,138, which represents a 39% decrease. In addition, there appear to be significant recruitment shortages in the profession. According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, in 2017 fewer than 3% of 11,000 trainee solicitors were working in criminal law. That raises real issues as to people’s ability to access justice. What plans does my hon. Friend have to address this decline?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want criminal law and criminal defence to be an attractive, sustainable profession, which is why we put £23 million into the advocates’ graduated fee scheme last year, which can benefit solicitor advocates, and why we put, as the first wave of criminal legal aid, up to £51 million into the profession. It is a great and important job, and we want people to go into it.
Dr Ben Spencer
I thank the Minister for his answers. Equity of access to justice is a central tenet of the rule of law. Does he agree that is it essential not only that everyone who needs it has access to legal aid, but that it is set at a level that does not disincentivise lawyers from taking on legal aid cases?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. Anyone in this Chamber could be accused of a crime they have not committed, and we need to ensure that there are lawyers who can take on the cases, challenge the prosecution and evidence, and ensure that justice is done. That is why we have the criminal legal aid review, and we want to ensure that that independently led review secures a sustainable profession into the future, so that justice can be done in the future.
James Daly
I applaud the Minister for his ongoing efforts to ensure that we have a viable and sustainable criminal legal aid sector. Will he work with all stakeholders to ensure that fee income is increased, as he knows it is the single most important issue to every firm of criminal law solicitors in the country?
Alex Chalk
I particularly thank my hon. Friend, who has been such a powerful champion of criminal defence. He is absolutely right. It has to be a system that offers rates that are attractive to people coming into the profession. Crime lower work—that critical work at police stations and in the magistrates court—has to be properly remunerated. The vital work that he has done in the past and that his colleagues do needs to be recognised and rewarded.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
Again, we have heard warm words from the Dispatch Box. I am sorry to have to spoil the Justice Secretary’s birthday, but the truth is this: the Government simply have not got to grips with the crisis in legal aid, and those on the front line of our criminal justice system know it. Nearly two years on from the announcement of a criminal legal aid review, the plan for accelerated items has only just been published. That sticking plaster might just have sufficed before covid, but for a justice system already on its knees, it is woefully insufficient, and victims, defendants and practitioners alike are paying the price. Will the Minister put a stop to the dither and delay, recognise the urgency of the situation, and commit to expediting the remaining stages or at the very least come up with a realistic timetable?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I like the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid he is completely wrong. This is the Government who have put money into the profession. Let me tell him one thing: under his Government, does he know how much money was paid for unused material for advocates? Not a penny piece. This is the Government who are putting money into the profession. That is the way it is going to stay.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The first duty of any Government is to protect their people. Too often, our system of sentencing in England and Wales does not command the public’s confidence, so last week I laid a White Paper entitled, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”. The measures in the White Paper will keep serious violent and sexual offenders in prison for longer and prevent the automatic release of prisoners before the end of their sentence if they present a danger to the public.
Protecting the public from the effects of lower level offending also means finding new ways to break cycles of crime. Our proposals for robust community sentences, backed by an empowered probation service and utilising the most up-to-date technology, will make the smart interventions to address the things that can drive low-level offending, such as poor mental health, and drug and alcohol addiction. This smarter approach will grow confidence in our system of justice.
A cross-Government approach will characterise the reforms, but as we bring them before the House I also look forward to support from across the political divide, so that we can work together to keep the public safe from harm and to bring down stubbornly high rates of reoffending for good.
Olivia Blake
The prison operator G4S is withholding full sick pay from workers who operate in close contact with prisoners. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the GMB union that that is scandalous? Will he support calls for G4S to provide the sick pay its workers deserve?
Robert Buckland
While it would be wrong of me to make direct comment on what is, sadly, a dispute, I will certainly look into the matter and report back to the hon. Lady on the latest progress or otherwise. I hugely value prison staff and the incredible work they have done, not just throughout the covid pandemic but beforehand.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing on this important issue and for the introduction of his Bill. I fully recognise his concern, which is why we are working with the judiciary on a programme to increase the overall number of recruited magistrates. We are consulting on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age of judicial office holders, including magistrates. That consultation closes on 16 October. I will consider the matter very carefully before reaching a final decision.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady raises an issue that, as she probably knows, is very close to my heart. In the White Paper, we have announced a call for evidence about neurodivergence within the criminal justice system, because I think that we can do much, much better, not just in understanding and making adjustments for people with autism and other conditions when they get into the system, but in preventing them from getting into the system in the first place. One of the issues that she raises is, of course, the question of diagnosis, and many people are not diagnosed even though they present with such problems. I will look at that matter more closely and I am grateful to her for raising it.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issue of unpaid work, because it is a way for offenders to make reparation to wider society for the damage that is caused by crime. As part of our White Paper plans, we will introduce a new statutory duty for important stakeholders, such as police and crime commissioners, to be consulted on the type of unpaid work projects in their area. I believe that that means we will see projects being delivered that are far more at the heart of the communities in which they live.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Last year, the Government announced a £100 million boost to investment in the installation of body scanners in many of our prisons, and particularly category B local prisons with a high number of receptions and visitors. It protects not only prisoners from abuse, but staff, and it makes prisons, I believe, safer places in which to work and gives greater confidence to the wider public that we are doing everything we can to make our prisons as safe as possible.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady raises a very disturbing case, and sadly, it is not alone. Many shop workers have been at the frontline of providing vital services through the intensity of the lockdown and continue to do so. It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that sentencing guidelines properly reflect the role that they play. There is helpful reference in the sentencing guidelines, of course, to people in that line of service, but if there is more that we can do to draw the courts’ attention to the particular importance of shopworkers, we should do so.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to those who provide the therapeutic services at Aylesbury YOI, whom I have met in the past. We have clearly stated that we see young adults right up to the age of 25 as a group that need treatment that is different from other cohorts, and we have specialist models for operational delivery to support prisons holding young adults to get the best results for that group. The curriculum at Aylesbury includes personal and social development skills, business, horticulture, barbering and decorating, and we will reinforce that with our new national prisoner education service, which is focused on work-based training and skills.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, and I pay tribute to the work of the Victims’ Commissioner and, indeed, her predecessor. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that a wider consultation on the new, revised victims code has been finished. We will be publishing the revised victims code in the next several weeks. It is a much smaller, user-friendly document. But further than that, we will legislate as soon as possible, within the next year, for a victims law to enshrine the rights contained in the code and elsewhere, to give victims the higher protection that both he and I want to see.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the important point of disclosure of criminal records. In too many cases, it has been a bar to employment, which is a sure-fire way out of reoffending. For the first time, in our White Paper, we set out revised rules. Some custodial sentences of over four years will be able to become spent as part of criminal record checks for non-sensitive roles, in addition to significant reductions to the rehabilitation periods for sentences of under four years. These proposals, alongside recently approved legislation to change the rules governing disclosure for sensitive roles by removing the multiple convictions rule and the disclosure of youth cautions, will indeed help those who have offended in the past to access employment.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
Robert Buckland
I can reassure the hon. Lady that domestic abuse trials have continued to be prioritised throughout the pandemic, with early listings. I am very impressed by the work that is being done in Wales in particular, which I visited recently, to list cases in the magistrates court to remove the backlog. Indeed, in the Crown court as well trials are being listed at the earliest opportunity. She can be assured that priority is given to domestic abuse cases when these matters are listed.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I would like to thank all our staff in Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service who have carried on working throughout the pandemic. Currently, over 70% of staff work from a court or tribunal building, and the rest are working at home via the cloud video platform. We are investing £142 million in our court system to speed up the technological and modernisation improvements, and we are investing an additional £80 million to support the recovery of our criminal courts, including the recruitment of 1,600 members of staff and further adaptations to our courtrooms to allow more and more of them to be used.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Robert Buckland
I must declare an interest, because I am a member of the Northern Ireland Bar. The particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises seems to be a matter for the Northern Ireland Justice authorities. However, I will discuss the matter with him further so that we can obtain maximum clarity.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to that operation in Nottinghamshire and to the many others that are safeguarding our communities. Parliament has provided the courts with the full range of sentencing powers in order to deal effectively with these offenders, but tough enforcement is also a fundamental part of our approach. We are taking a smarter approach to the restriction of drugs supply using technology and data and taking partnership action with other agencies to tackle drugs alongside other criminal activity.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Robert Buckland
The work of Devon and Cornwall police in ensuring that virtual court processes carry on at this challenging time is very much appreciated. I am going to include in primary legislation, to be introduced as early as possible in 2021, a provision to allow court-appointed contractors to staff those virtual courts within police custody suites, in order to relieve the burden on serving police officers.
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.
Covid-19
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Prime Minister addresses the Chamber, could I point out that British Sign Language interpretation of the statement is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv? I now call the Prime Minister to make his statement.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will make a statement on our response to the rising number of coronavirus cases and how we must act now to avoid still graver consequences later on.
At every stage in this pandemic, we have struck a delicate balance between saving lives by protecting our NHS, and minimising the wider impact of our restrictions. It is because of the common sense and fortitude of the British people that, earlier this year, we were able to avert an even worse catastrophe, forming a human shield around our NHS and then getting our country moving again by reopening key sectors of our economy and returning children to school. But we always knew that, while we might have driven the virus into retreat, the prospect of a second wave was real. I am sorry to say that, as in Spain, France and many other countries, we have reached a perilous turning point. A month ago, on average, around 1,000 people across the UK were testing positive for coronavirus every day. The latest figure has almost quadrupled to 3,929. Yesterday, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser warned that the doubling rate for new cases could be between seven and 20 days, with the possibility of tens of thousands of new infections next month.
I wish I could reassure the House that the growing number of cases is merely a function of more testing, but a rising proportion of the tests themselves are yielding a positive result. I also wish I could say that more of our people now have the antibodies to keep the virus off, but the latest data suggests that fewer than 8% of us are in this position. It is true that the number of new cases is growing fastest among those aged 20 to 29, but the evidence shows that the virus is spreading to other, more vulnerable age groups, as we have seen in France and Spain, where this has led to increased hospital admissions and, sadly, more deaths. In the last fortnight, daily hospital admissions in England have more than doubled. Tens of thousands of daily infections in October would, as night follows day, lead to hundreds of daily deaths in November, and those numbers would continue to grow unless we act. As with all respiratory viruses, covid is likely to spread faster as autumn becomes winter. Yesterday, on the advice of the four chief medical officers, the UK’s covid alert level was raised from 3 to 4—the second most serious stage—meaning that transmission is high or rising exponentially.
So this is the moment when we must act. If we can curb the number of daily infections and reduce the reproduction rate to 1, we can save lives, protect the NHS and the most vulnerable, and shelter the economy from the far sterner and more costly measures that would inevitably become necessary later on. So we are acting on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine.
The Government will introduce new restrictions in England, carefully judged to achieve the maximum reduction in the R number with the minimum damage to lives and livelihoods. I stress that this is by no means a return to the full lockdown of March. We are not issuing a general instruction to stay at home. We will ensure that schools, colleges and universities stay open, because nothing is more important than the education, health and wellbeing of our young people. We will ensure that businesses can stay open in a covid-compliant way. However, we must take action to suppress the disease.
First, we are once again asking office workers who can work from home to do so. In key public services and in all professions where home working is not possible, such as construction or retail, people should continue to attend their workplaces and, like Government, this House will be free to take forward its business in a covid-secure way, which you, Mr Speaker, have pioneered.
Secondly, from Thursday, all pubs, bars and restaurants must operate a table service only, except for takeaways. Together with all hospitality venues, they must close at 10 pm and to help the police enforce this rule I am afraid that that means, alas, closing and not just calling for last orders, because simplicity is paramount. The same will apply to takeaways, although deliveries can continue thereafter. I am sorry that this will affect many businesses just getting back on their feet, but we must act to stop the virus from being transmitted in bars and restaurants.
Thirdly, we will extend the requirement to wear face coverings to include staff in retail, all users of taxis and private hire vehicles, and staff and customers in indoor hospitality, except when seated at a table to eat or drink.
Fourthly, in retail, leisure and tourism and other sectors, our covid-secure guidelines will become legal obligations. Businesses will be fined and could be closed if they breach the rules.
Fifthly, now is the time to tighten up the rule of six. I am afraid that from Monday a maximum of 15 people will be able to attend wedding ceremonies and receptions, although up to 30 can still attend a funeral, as now. We will also have to extend the rule of six to all adult indoor team sports.
Finally, we have to acknowledge that the spread of the virus is now affecting our ability to reopen business conferences, exhibitions and large sporting events, so we will not be able to do this from 1 October. I recognise the implications for our sports clubs, which are the life and soul of our communities, and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Culture Secretary are working urgently on what we can do now to support them.
These rules—these measures—will only work if people comply. There is nothing more frustrating for the vast majority who do comply—the law-abiding majority—than the sight of a few brazenly defying the rules, so these rules will be enforced by tighter penalties. We have already introduced a fine of up to £10,000 for those who fail to self-isolate, and such fines will now be applied to businesses breaking covid rules. The penalty for failing to wear a mask or breaking the rule of six will now double to £200 for a first offence. We will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need, a greater police presence on our streets, and the option to draw on military support where required to free up the police.
The measures I have announced all apply in England, and the devolved Administrations are taking similar steps. I spoke yesterday with each of the First Ministers and again today, and I thank them for their collaboration.
The health of everyone in these islands depends on our common success. Already, about 13 million people across England are living under various local restrictions over and above national measures. We will continue to act against local flare-ups, working alongside councils and strengthening measures where necessary.
I want to speak directly to those who were shielding early in the pandemic and who may be anxious about being at greater risk. Following advice from our senior clinicians, our guidance continues to be that you do not need to shield except in local lockdown areas, and we will keep this under constant review.
I must emphasise that if all our actions fail to bring the R below 1, we reserve the right to deploy greater firepower with significantly greater restrictions. I fervently want to avoid taking this step, as do the devolved Administrations, but we will only be able to avoid it if our new measures work and our behaviour changes.
We will spare no effort in developing vaccines, treatments and new forms of mass testing, but unless we palpably make progress, we should assume that the restrictions I have announced will remain in place for perhaps six months. For the time being, the virus is a fact of our lives, and I must tell the House and the country that our fight against it will continue. We will not listen to those who say, “Let the virus rip”, nor to those who urge a permanent lockdown. We are taking decisive and appropriate steps to balance saving lives with protecting jobs and livelihoods.
I know all this will have profound consequences for our constituents, so the Government will give the House every opportunity to scrutinise our decisions. In addition to regular statements and debates, Members will be able to question the Government’s scientific advisers more regularly, gain access to data about their constituencies and join daily calls with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
After six months of restrictions, it would be tempting to hope that the threat has faded and to seek comfort in the belief that if you have avoided the virus so far, you are somehow immune. I have to say that it is that kind of complacency that could be our undoing. If we fail to act together now, we will not only place others at risk, but jeopardise our own futures with the more drastic action that we would inevitably be forced to take.
No British Government would wish to stifle our freedoms in the ways that we have found necessary this year, yet even now we can draw some comfort from the fact that schools, universities and places of worship are staying open, shops can serve their customers, construction workers can go to building sites, and the vast majority of the UK economy can continue moving forwards.
We are also better prepared for a second wave with the ventilators, the personal protective equipment, the dexamethasone, the Nightingale hospitals and a hundred times as much testing as we began this epidemic with. It now falls to each and every one of us to remember the basics: wash our hands, cover our faces, observe social distancing and follow the rules. Then we can fight back against this virus, shelter our economy from even greater damage, protect the most vulnerable in care homes and hospitals, safeguard our NHS and save many more lives. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his telephone call last night. The picture presented yesterday by the Government’s advisers was stark and cannot be ignored. Infections are rising, hospitalisations are rising and the trajectory is clear. We know from bitter experience what happens next, so it is right that the Prime Minister is announcing further measures today, and we support those measures, just as we supported lockdown in March and the more recent local lockdowns. Although we have fierce criticism of the way the Government are handling this pandemic, when restrictions are needed, the national interest lies in clear communications and cross-party support, and so we will—as we have done before—encourage people to follow the Government guidance and obey the rule of law.
Families across the country will be anxious today. Many are already living under local lockdowns; many more fear that, soon, they will be. They are worried about their jobs, their loved ones and whether they will be able to spend Christmas with their families. They will also be worried that the Government do not have a clear strategy. One day, people are encouraged to work in the office; in fact, more than encouraged—they were openly challenged by the Prime Minister for not doing so. Today, they are told the opposite.
This is a time of national crisis, and we need clear leadership, so it is right that the Prime Minister answers a number of serious questions about the next steps. First, a number of areas in England already have localised restrictions, including some that are very similar to those announced today. Pubs and restaurants in Bolton, for example, have been told to shut at 10 pm for about two weeks, and Leicester has been in localised restrictions for about three months, yet infections in those areas remain high. Can the Prime Minister be sure that the restrictions he is introducing today will be effective in suppressing the virus? If they do not work, when does he envisage further measures might be necessary?
I also want to ask about support for families and businesses. These restrictions will put further pressures on the hospitality sector, on high streets and town centres and on people’s jobs and businesses, so what emergency financial support will be made available to those who need it? There was nothing in the Prime Minister’s statement about that. There is a big gap here. Will the Prime Minister now accept that withdrawing the furlough scheme in one fell swoop would be a disaster, and actually at complete odds with the measures he just announced, which are possibly for up to six months? Will he take us up on our offer to work with him, and with trade unions and businesses, on a replacement scheme that protects jobs and businesses?
Given the rise in infections, these restrictions are necessary, but they were not inevitable. We warned the Prime Minister months ago that testing needed to be fixed by the autumn. The Academy of Medical Sciences told him the same in July, saying:
“Testing and tracing capacity will need to be significantly expanded to cope with increasing demands over the winter.”
However, the Government did not listen. They pretended there was not a problem. They did not act quickly enough, and now the testing system is not working, just when we need it.
We should also recognise that a second national lockdown is not inevitable. That would be a huge failure of government, not an act of God. There is still time to prevent it. That must be a national effort. Labour will do whatever is reasonable and necessary to support that, to save lives and to protect the NHS, but the Government must lead, and they must do so fast.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support. I notice that it seems to come and go, but it seems to be here today. He criticises testing. He should know that, as I have told the House many times, this country is now testing more than any other country in Europe—one test for every five people. Actually, in spite of the massive increase in demand for testing, we have greatly increased the number of contacts reached from the indexed cases. He should pay tribute to those involved in the whole testing operation, in spite of all the difficulties they face.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions the success of local lockdowns, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to what happened in Leicester. That was a heroic effort of local people, and it has happened in other parts of the country—local people pulling together to drive the virus down. That is what we hope to encourage throughout the country, and that is certainly part of our strategy. He asked what we are doing to support businesses, families and communities across the country, as though we had not already quite rightly spent £160 billion to support businesses, jobs and livelihoods across the country. We will continue to put our arms around the people of this country.
I am grateful, as I say, for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says and the support, such as it is, that he has offered. However, I can tell him that, in putting forward that message of support, I hope he will also say to everybody in his constituency and elsewhere that this is a balanced and proportionate response to the crisis that we face. We are driving the virus down—that is our objective by these measures—but we are also, as I have said, keeping the vast majority of the UK economy going. That is our programme. That is what we intend to do. This is a package to drive down the R, but also to allow education and jobs and growth to continue. That is absolutely vital for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand, and I hope that, in his support, which I welcome, he will communicate that to the country as well.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
One of the most difficult decisions a Prime Minister has to take in a democracy is to restrict our freedoms for the greater good. In the measures he has announced today, which have cross-party consensus, my right hon. Friend has sought balance and proportionality, as he has said, in protecting the economy while reducing the risk of the virus spreading like wildfire.
However, given the six-month timeframe he has announced, what does he have to say to grandparents who want to live their lives before it is too late and who cannot see their families; to worried parents and families who cannot access a test at the moment; to workers and business owners facing financial ruin; and to MPs who want to debate these matters in Parliament before they are decided, not after, so that they can help him shoulder this onerous responsibility? How can he convince all of them that he is taking the right path, and unite our country with hope of an end to this misery?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. She is entirely right that Parliament should and will debate these issues. We will make time early next week, in Government time, for a full debate on these measures.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We have reached a critical moment. The virus has not gone away, it is not going away, and it remains as deadly as ever. I welcome the fact that following calls this weekend from our First Minister, a four-nation Cobra meeting has taken place this morning. We have all witnessed the worrying rise in virus cases over the past number of weeks, and we all know the projections and consequences our society will face if it continues to grow at the same rate.
We must also be clear about one thing: if we take the right actions now, there is nothing inevitable about the exponential spread of this virus. If we act decisively, move sharply and take the right, tough decisions now, we can get the virus back under control, minimise the time we all spend under new restrictions and, most importantly, we can save lives.
Today, Governments across the four nations are rightly asking citizens to make more sacrifices to protect our collective health. In return for these sacrifices, it is only right that citizens are provided with financial support amid the health and economic uncertainty. We are now just a few short weeks away from the end of the furlough scheme. Analysis from the Scottish Government has already shown that extending the scheme by eight months could save about 61,000 jobs in Scotland. France, Germany and Ireland have already extended their job retention schemes into next year, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have rigidly refused to extend furlough.
We all know, however, that U-turns and mixed messaging have come to define this Government. On 10 July, the Prime Minister said:
“Go back to work if you can.”
On 14 August, the Chancellor said it was “crucial” that we “do our bit”, such as
“going back to our places of work,”
and on 27 August, Government sources said:
“Go back to work or risk losing your job”.
The Prime Minister has changed his advice this morning on working from home. It is now time to change his mind on furlough as well. So today I have one question, and it is a question that 61,000 employees in Scotland are asking. Prime Minister, they deserve certainty and they deserve an answer. Will this Government now save those jobs and extend the furlough scheme beyond October? Prime Minister, do not throw workers on the scrap heap, through no fault of their own.
The Prime Minister
There was a great deal in the right hon. Gentleman’s question that I agree with. He is right that we need to take decisive action now, and I am very grateful for the collaboration that we have all been engaged in across the UK. Our objective is to keep businesses going, to keep the economy moving as much as we can and indeed to allow people to go back to work where they must but, of course, to work from home if they can. It is very clear what the choices are and what the guidance is.
Of course we will continue to support businesses and people who face challenges because of coronavirus throughout our United Kingdom. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in Scotland alone, the Barnett consequentials of the support are now well over £5 billion, and across all the devolved Administrations they are about £12.6 billion. We will continue to send that support throughout the whole UK, to put our arms around the whole workforce of the UK and to protect jobs and livelihoods, but we also want to see those businesses continuing and jobs being created.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I support the measures announced today. The Prime Minister will have decided them with a heavy heart, but all the evidence from South Korea, Singapore and other countries is that early, decisive action now is the best way to avoid a second full lockdown later. I want to ask him about testing. We have tripled capacity since May and will double it again by the end of October, so there has been a transformation, but we are not there yet. At a school in my constituency a child has tested positive, but it only gets a quota of 10 tests every three weeks, and it is worried that people may be passing on the virus asymptomatically whom it is not able to identify. How can he reassure that school and others up and down the country that are trying so hard to do the right thing?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have massively increased testing across the country. We are now prioritising teachers, as he knows. He raises a very important point about school pupils, and an interesting fact is that the rates of infection and transmission among school pupils are much lower than in the rest of the population. But I am not going to hide it from him that the future I see for our country and the way to defeat this virus is massively to expand testing, not just for teachers and not just in schools but throughout the country. That is why I am proud that, in spite of all the difficulties that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others have legitimately pointed out, NHS Test and Trace is now conducting more tests than any other country in Europe. I think we should be proud of that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
There was one major omission from the Prime Minister’s statement: an apology. Will he now apologise for his Government’s gross incompetence over testing, tracing and clear communications, which has led to these latest restrictions on people’s daily lives? As families and businesses look forward, especially to Christmas, how will the Government support the millions of people who are on the brink of losing their jobs, losing their businesses and losing their livelihoods? What is the new plan for them?
The Prime Minister
The plan is that we should continue to keep the economy moving in the way that I have described and the Government have set out, which I believe is, quite rightly, supported by the Opposition, while suppressing the R and getting the virus down. That is our policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman support it?
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
One of the lessons of the lockdown measures in the spring was that they worked, but almost everyone ended up wishing that they had been introduced a week or two earlier, so the Prime Minister is right to act in anticipation rather than in reaction. Will he take the public into his confidence and tell them whether the six-month period that he mentioned is irrespective of the experience of infections and hospitalisation over the weeks and months ahead? What will be the criteria for lifting these restrictions and others such as the rule of six?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend asks a really important question. The answer is, of course, that we must look at what the data tell us. There are several important data. The R is perhaps the crucial one, but we also look at rates of admissions to hospitals and new infections. If those facts change—if things turn around, and if the British public can do what they did before and get this virus down and get it under control—then of course we will review the measures and review the situation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Prime Minister is right that testing is a vital part of the Government’s response to the coronavirus. Will he join me in commending companies like Randox and Fortress Diagnostics in Northern Ireland, which have played a vital role at national level in delivering the Government’s testing programme? Randox has committed 99% of its covid testing capacity to that programme, and on 19 September it successfully reported almost 10,000 samples beyond its committed daily rate. Will the Prime Minister consider providing access to testing through local community pharmacies to expand the capacity and public accessibility to testing at this time?
The Prime Minister
I do indeed congratulate Randox and all the other businesses involved. We are massively expanding testing the whole time. It is very important for the House to understand that testing alone cannot fix this problem. There is a hiatus in the logic of the attacks that are sometimes mounted. The problem we have in the spread of this virus is that, alas, a minority of people have not been following the guidance in the way they might have done. What we are trying to do now is to get everybody to focus on the rules and the guidance, to enforce it strictly and to get the R down.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for all his hard work during these difficult, challenging times to keep us all safe. He will be aware that I have put forward two private Member’s Bills to improve mental health care provision for all, supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This morning, I spoke to Professor Allan Young from King’s College London, who raised with me real concerns about the reduction in mental health care provision for those with severe mental health issues during covid-19. Will the Prime Minister please look urgently into the matter and the representations of experts such as Professor Young, which I will forward to his office?
The Prime Minister
I look forward to receiving those representations—I will study them carefully. As the House has heard before, the Government are spending £12 billion more on mental health provision. Also, throughout the pandemic, we have been putting extra cash into mental health charities. I will certainly look at the case my hon. Friend raises.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch, Llefarydd. At the start of the pandemic, there were concerns that visitors were gathering in crowds at beauty spots like yr Wyddfa—Snowdon. This happened again last weekend. Local lockdowns in Wales now require people to remain within their local authority area, except for essential reasons, but no such requirements exist in England. In those unfortunate situations where people face local lockdowns, will the Prime Minister give clear guidance against out-of-area travel for leisure purposes?
The Prime Minister
For local lockdowns, the guidance is given by the local authorities, following the decision in Covid-O about exactly what restrictions are to be put in place. Clearly the restriction the right hon. Lady suggests is part of the mix.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for being here in person to answer our questions. Surely the reality is that national lockdown has one shot and any repeat of that, with the inevitable unlock that follows, reintroduces an increased element of opportunity for the virus and risk for us, as we are seeing now. Does the Prime Minister agree that all these restrictions on our constituents’ lives require their ongoing consent, and that it is incumbent on the Government, the scientists who advise him and Parliament to stress-test these decisions and, crucially, the evidence that lies behind them?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that. It would be greatly to the advantage of the debate and the country for these questions to be discussed in the House in the way that I have outlined and was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan).
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The public have shown a vast capacity for putting others first during the pandemic, and now they are being asked to do more. In return, the Government need to do more for them. Public consent is dependent on people not being forced into financial ruin. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the most affected sectors, such as hospitality and the arts, continue to get the financial support they need? In particular, will he meet me and other hon. Members to find solutions for more than 3 million self-employed people who have not been covered by the existing financial schemes? He says he will put his arms around the whole workforce; many millions of the self-employed have not felt the benefit of that embrace.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We have extended loans and grants to every conceivable sector of the economy, including £1.57 billion to the arts sector alone, and we will of course do more. The most important thing that we can do, returning to the central message that I am trying to get over today, is to push down on the R while simultaneously allowing as much of the economy to flourish as we possibly can. That is our collective objective today.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The country is now full of amateur infection control experts, amateur epidemiologists and the odd Captain Hindsight. I do not intend to be one of those, but I must express to the Prime Minister the concern of constituents in my area where the seven-day rolling average is now well below 20 and falling, where people have followed the rules but have seen those at protests and street parties not having action taken against them. We will now suffer as a result of these further measures, support them though I do. In particular, hospitality will suffer. May I urge him to look again at the Government’s plans to halve the small brewers’ rate relief, which will damage small brewers, particularly craft brewers? Can we look again at that as this is not the time to be introducing such changes?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently for his constituents and for those who feel let down by the minority who are not obeying the rules. That is why we are outlining this programme of tough enforcement today. I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to look at the fiscal measures that my hon. Friend proposes in respect of small brewers.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Prime Minister will have support for taking the necessary measures to contain and suppress the virus, but he is receiving a very strong message from both sides of the House today that he does need to revisit the economic support measures, particularly in the light of changed circumstances and bearing in mind the need to look at other creative and innovative solutions. Will he therefore accept that, when the Chancellor made his statement back at the beginning of July, a certain set of planning assumptions were made that now no longer apply with the virus, so it is incumbent on the Government to change course and to change what they are doing to support people as well?
The Prime Minister
I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and it is certainly our intention, as we go forward, to do everything we can to protect lives and livelihoods and to put our arms around everyone in this country. No one can deny that the Chancellor has been exceptionally creative and ambitious in the plans that he has set out, and he will continue to apply the maximum possible imagination and creativity in that respect.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Don Valley appreciates all the work that the Prime Minister and his team are carrying out in response to the recent rise in cases of covid-19. That said, I must say to him that the blanket restrictions are affecting all people of all ages, immaterial of the actual risk posed to them. Will the Government therefore ask individuals to carry out a personal covid risk assessment, the results of which could determine whether someone needs to shield or can go about their daily lives. This will help boost the economy while protecting the vulnerable. After all, many people’s lives are being affected tremendously by these restrictions, especially the young, who, as we all know, are only young once.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend really puts his finger on the heart of the dilemma. The tragedy of the coronavirus epidemic is that people who are not badly affected themselves can none the less pass it on unwittingly to older or more vulnerable people, so their harmless cough can be someone else’s death knell, unfortunately. That is why we have to apply the restrictions that we do, but he is right also to look ahead to a time when I do believe that we will be able much more easily to identify whether or not we are infectious and to allow us, therefore, to go about our daily lives more easily—young and old.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
By 6 pm this evening, both local authorities covering my constituency will be under Welsh Government local lockdown restrictions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. Among the restrictions will be one on holiday travel, meaning that constituents will not be able to go on planned holidays. Some holiday companies are refusing refunds on the grounds that local restrictions are not covered by UK law, pointing instead to Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice on travel. What can the Prime Minister do to support constituents in this case and what is his message to those holiday companies?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman asks an excellent question. It is not an anomaly that I had hitherto been aware of, but if he would care to write to me with the details of his constituents’ concerns, I will certainly take it up.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Darent Valley Hospital in my constituency did an amazing job at the heart of the outbreak, as did many of my local GP surgeries. However, they were under huge pressure. Therefore, will the Prime Minister consider extending the ability of local pharmacies and chemists to administer health treatments so that these gems on our high street can ease the pressure on our health system?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right that pharmacies and chemists are in the frontline of our healthcare and do an absolutely outstanding job in testing people for all kinds of things, covid among them. We will certainly support them in any way that we can.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
We may well have to endure this for six months or more, but it is less than six weeks until the furlough scheme ends. Germany, France and even Ireland are extending furlough schemes for specific sectors. It is a political, not a health decision. Many communities in my constituency were devastated by political decisions made by a Tory Government in the 1980s that reaped mass unemployment. Are we now to have that revisited on them in 2020, or will the Prime Minister extend the furlough scheme?
The Prime Minister
The comparisons with other European countries are actually illuminating, because the furlough scheme is far more generous than that of either Germany or France, or virtually any other country in Europe. What we will continue to do, as I have said repeatedly to the House, is to put our arms around the workers of this country to make sure that we help people throughout the crisis, but also, as I said before, to do everything we can to keep our economy moving and keep people in work wherever we can.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the balanced and proportionate set of measures that my right hon. Friend has put together and recognise that these are very finely balanced and very difficult decisions for him to take. But lockdowns, as I think he recognises, destroy jobs and also personal wellbeing. The fact that lockdowns have damaged our economy means that in the years ahead a smaller economy will probably have serious impacts on the health of millions of people up and down our country. Does he recognise that, yes, we should listen very carefully to the epidemiologists, but we must also listen very carefully to the Treasury, to businesses and to economists?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why we have to take action now to avoid the risk of having to take more drastic action later on that would do greater economic damage. That is the key point of what we are doing today.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Can the Prime Minister explain why a new test centre opening today on Hull University land for students and the local community—a centre that of course I welcome—will be run by private firms Deloitte and G4S with no accountability to local bodies with statutory public health responsibilities to the local community, or to the university, which is of course responsible for its students? How does this silo approach that the Prime Minister has created around testing help us to have the joined-up approach that we all want in Hull to tackle this pandemic?
The Prime Minister
I will study what the hon. Lady says about the testing unit at Hull University. Everywhere across the country, NHS Test and Trace has been working hand in glove with local authorities to get testing done and hand in glove with Public Health England and of course all our public services. I am surprised by what she says about the testing unit at Hull University, but I will certainly ask NHS Test and Trace to give her a full explanation. In my experience, everything is done to enlist and mobilise the expertise of local government to get the testing done.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Many people are concerned that, with this dominant focus on covid, people who need NHS treatment for other illnesses or are seeking elective surgery will be pushed further back in the queue, so will the Prime Minister assure us and make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care gives priority to communicating the progress made in dealing with the backlog in surgeries as we go through the winter period?
The Prime Minister
Of course we must do everything we can to ensure that our NHS is not overwhelmed with covid cases. It is when we have a covid crisis—a boom in covid cases—that, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, other needs, including cardiac and cancer cases, are pushed off. That is completely wrong, which is why it is now so vital that we suppress the R—that we drive the rate of infection down—and stop a boom in covid cases, because that is the threat to our NHS and to the provision of all the basic services on which our country relies.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s objective relies on the local public health effort. I thank the local NHS in Bristol, Bristol City Council and Public Health England in the south-west for their remarkable work. The reorganisation of health services always distracts from people’s jobs, destroys morale and wastes money, so will the Prime Minister explain the benefits of abolishing Public Health England in the middle of this crisis? If he cannot, will he commit now to reversing that decision, at least until we have an inquiry?
The Prime Minister
It is essential that we have the most powerful possible public health organisation in this country. The Joint Biosecurity Centre now needs to come together with Public Health England to deliver what I believe will be a better service for this country. In fact, the change to which the hon. Lady refers does not happen until next year, but we are getting it under way now.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister is a true libertarian and must have agonised over today’s decision and those taken over recent months. My constituents in Meriden are concerned about a second national lockdown, with schools closing and businesses shutting down. Does my right hon. Friend agree that individual responsibility is more important today than it has ever been? Will he confirm that he will do everything he can to avoid a second full national lockdown?
The Prime Minister
The whole objective today is to avoid that second national lockdown—nobody wants to see that. My hon. Friend is right to point the finger at us: we can do this together if we take responsibility for the way we behave, the way we enforce the rules and the way we act in public places. That is how we will get the R down collectively and defeat the virus.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Back in July, the Government introduced the Business and Planning Act 2020, which allowed the sale and consumption of alcohol off the premises for as long as the licence of licensed premises. Today, just weeks later, the Prime Minister has come to the House to say that there will be no sales and no service in hospitality after 10 o’clock at night. Will he explain the rationale behind that 10 o’clock curfew and the Government’s very fast change of plan?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I am grateful to her. As Members from all parties have said, these are not easy decisions—nobody wants to curtail the right of restaurants and other businesses to go about their lawful business. What we have seen from the evidence is that, alas, the spread of disease tends to happen later at night, after more alcohol has been consumed. This is one way that we see of driving down the R without doing excessive economic damage. That is the balance we have to strike.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has laid before the House today. People who are vulnerable to covid are also extremely vulnerable to seasonal flu, a disease that killed more than 11,000 people last year in the UK alone and is one of the biggest sources of winter pressures on NHS. In the summer, the Government promised one of the largest flu vaccination programmes in history; will my right hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to deliver it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed I can. The biggest flu vaccine programme is going ahead as we speak. Thirty million people will be able to have a flu jab this autumn, and I thoroughly advise Members to get one.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
There is a wee whiff of hypocrisy here. As the Prime Minister and his Cabinet bring in new measures to combat covid-19, he needs to tell us how he expects citizens throughout the UK to follow his rules and laws when he and his Government openly admit that they are willing to break international law and treaties themselves.
The Prime Minister
I think everybody in this House wants to see the people of this country and help the people of this country to obey the law of the land and get the virus down. That is the objective of this Government.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Children are very unlikely to be harmed by this virus, and they are also less likely to spread it. In my role as a children’s doctor and as a member of the Select Committee on Education, however, I have seen examples of children being harmed by not being in school. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will do everything in his power to keep schools open?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for what she does, and I thank the tens of millions of parents, teachers and pupils up and down the country who rose to the occasion at the beginning of the month and went back to school in overwhelming numbers. They are still at school in spite of the difficulties that they are currently facing. She is so right; it is vital for children and young people to be in school, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that that remains the case.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware of the alarming rate at which coronavirus cases are rising among black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, particularly among the Asian population, with some 34% of coronavirus patients in intensive care right now being from ethnic minorities. Can he tell the House how he thinks shutting pubs an hour earlier will address this worrying trend and what action the Government have taken to tackle the disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities since PHE published its report in June?
The Prime Minister
What we have done, as the hon. Lady possibly knows already, is to target testing and enhance protection for those in frontline groups, many of whom come from black and minority ethnic groups. What we are also doing, to stop the spread of infection in some communities, is working much harder with local government and local communities to get the messaging into those communities about the risks of transmission and the basic rules about hands, face, space. Those are among the things that we are doing.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
Sport and physical activity contributes more than £16 billion to the UK economy. It directly employs more than 600,000 people and indirectly employs many more. It has an ecosystem that reaches beyond the pitch, field, court or pool, and its social value, which includes physical and mental wellbeing, is estimated at more than £72 billion. Right now, however, both codes of rugby, football, cricket, netball, hockey, tennis and swimming, to name but a few, are in a perilous situation because spectators cannot return and venues cannot host income-raising events such as conferences. Sport, and all that it directly and indirectly involves, cannot continue to face such losses. Given today’s announcement that pauses the return of spectators, will the Prime Minister elaborate on his comments about a financial support package to ensure that sport is not left decimated after the pandemic?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the huge importance of sport to our national economy and our wellbeing. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is now working flat out with the Premier League and others to identify ways in which we can keep these clubs going and support sport at all levels throughout the pandemic. One of the things that we are not doing today, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, is stopping outdoor physical exercise or team sports outside. We want that to continue. That is why it is vital that we enforce the package of measures that we have outlined today.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you will be aware of the recent imposition of further restrictions in the north-east of England. First, I thank the Prime Minister for listening to and acting on the concerns, both individual and collective, from the northern group of Labour MPs about informal childcare arrangements in my constituency and others. However, before he feels my warm embrace, I ask him to provide assurances to businesses in my constituency in relation to the latest announcement of restrictions on businesses. Will he outline what sector-specific support the Government will offer to those worst affected by covid, such as the coach sector, which is on the brink of collapse because of Government inaction, in the main, and the failure to listen to the “Honk for Hope” campaign?
The Prime Minister
We will do whatever we can to support the coach sector and all other sectors across the country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have put in place a massive programme of loans, grants and support of all kinds. It is clear that the best thing for businesses in his constituency and across the country is not to paralyse the economy now and not to go back into lockdown, but to defeat the virus in so far as we possibly can and allow the economy to move forward—but we will continue to give whatever help we can.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am thankful for my right hon. Friend’s commitments on parliamentary scrutiny. He will know that many Members of the House and members of the public are concerned about the use of delegated powers, and I am sure that he remembers the sifting Committee from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Will he please consider whether some innovative thinking can be applied to ensure that the authority of this House is brought to bear on these measures in advance, so that the public can have confidence that their representatives are authorising the use of law to constrain their freedom?
The Prime Minister
Yes; under the current procedures, it is up to the House to confirm that the Executive do have the power to continue measures under the Coronavirus Act, and that will continue to be the case. We are additionally offering—insisting—that there should be a proper debate of these issues in Parliament. There are many different opinions in Parliament, and people need to air them together.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Children were delighted to return to their primary schools earlier this month, but—not surprisingly, after six months of isolation—coughs and colds have spread rapidly among them since. We have been reminded that each primary school has just 10 covid tests. When will primary schools have the wherewithal to test children and staff with symptoms to avoid spreading the virus at school and unnecessary school closures?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is spot on about what has been happening in schools. Sadly, in many cases we have seen a rise in demand for tests because people are, reasonably, unable to distinguish between the symptoms of covid and a seasonal cough or cold. We are trying to address the situation as fast as possible. The one consolation we have is that children are much less likely to suffer seriously, if at all, from the disease, and it seems that they are much less capable of spreading it.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his steadfast service to our country during this very difficult time. He understands the long-term harm that a second lockdown would cause to people across the country—to their health, their lives and their livelihoods—as they try their best to get back on their feet. Will he consider targeting protective measures at those who are most at risk, rather than deploying the blunt instrument that is lockdown, which causes so much suffering and offers no hope of a cure?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. We are doing everything we can to protect people, particularly those in care homes, who are so vulnerable, as we saw during the early stages of the pandemic. We have massively increased the winter action plan for care homes: putting in another £546 million; stopping movement between care homes; and taking the tough decision to stop visits to care homes in lockdown areas, which is very difficult for elderly people in care homes. The reason that we are taking those and other difficult measures now is that we want to avoid another national lockdown of exactly the type that my hon. Friend also rightly wants to avoid.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Some of my constituents have been waiting for four days, five days or even longer to get their test results back. In July, the Government rightly promised that 80% of in-person tests would receive their results within 24 hours of booking. That figure is now down to below 20%. That is dangerous: it means that people are not in the tracing system and their contacts are not being traced; it makes it easier for the virus to spread; and it makes it more likely that we will face even tougher restrictions, which the Prime Minister has described, across the whole country. Given that the Government made so many mistakes on testing in the first wave, we cannot afford for him to get this wrong again now. When will that 80% target now be met?
The Prime Minister
Despite the massive increase in testing that we have seen, with a 10% increase in capacity just in the past 10 days or so, we are seeing 64% of people getting their results in 24 hours. I do want to get that up as fast as possible to 80%. I can tell the right hon. Lady that we will double our testing capacity by the end of October, to 500,000 tests a day, and we are already testing more people than any other country in Europe.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and clear statement of purpose to conquer this terrible virus. One key concern locally has been the failure to comply with the regulations on the wearing of a face covering in shops and on public transport. Clearly, with these new restrictions coming into place, one key issue will be ensuring that people comply with the requirements. Equally, people do not want to get to a position where they are forced to wear a face covering in the open air as they are just going about their normal business. Will he state for the House what he is going to do to make sure that the message gets across to people that failing to comply with these rules is selfish and potentially places others at risk?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is spot on, which is why we are increasing the fines from £100 to £200. You are protecting yourself and protecting other people, so you wear a face covering where you should.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab [V])
Shamefully, the UK has had the one of the highest coronavirus death rates in the world. If we had had Germany’s deaths per million rate, we would have had more than 30,000 fewer coronavirus deaths. If we had had the much lower death rates of South Korea and New Zealand, we would have had more than 40,000 fewer deaths. So will the Prime Minister take responsibility for our unacceptably high death rate? To avoid a repeat this winter, will he now pursue the zero covid strategy that the Independent SAGE is calling for, and that countries such as South Korea and New Zealand are successfully implementing?
The Prime Minister
What we are pursuing, with the support of the Opposition, is a policy of driving this virus down, while allowing education and our economy to continue. I hope the hon. Gentleman will lend his support to that effort as well.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his leadership during this crisis, but will he also commit to a vote in this House prior to any further steps towards a full second national lockdown?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are continuing to expand testing and tracing, and it is by driving down this virus that we will be able to take the country forward to a much, much brighter future. If people focus on the measures we have outlined today, particularly on obeying the guidance on social distancing, together we will defeat covid.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
It is clear this afternoon that there is significant agreement across the House that the restrictions the Prime Minister has announced, although not necessarily popular, are necessary. There is also a great deal of cross-party agreement that the support schemes for businesses need to be extended at the same time as the restrictions are extended. So rather than simply rejecting it out of hand, will he agree to an invitation to speak to business leaders, trade union leaders and Opposition parties, in order to put together a financial support scheme for not only those employees who currently rely on the furlough, but the tens of thousands of small business owners who have been left without any support at all during the past six months?
The Prime Minister
I have had the opportunity in the course of the past few months to talk to many businesses up and down the country—across Scotland—and they have uniformly been appreciative of the support the Government have given so far. As I have said earlier, we will ensure that we maintain a very creative and imaginative approach in helping those businesses, but the best thing we can do is fight the virus and keep the economy moving.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He is right to say that it is the co-operation and good sense of the British public that has seen the spread of this difficult outbreak curtailed. My constituents will continue to do exactly what is required of them, but the truth is that Cornwall has a very low rate of covid-19, and that has been the case throughout. What message of hope can the Prime Minister give to teenagers going to schools and colleges who are being asked to wear face masks when not in class, to churchgoers who have been blocked from freedom of worship, and to businesses that have yet to open and are continually frustrated from doing so?
The Prime Minister
Churchgoers will continue to have freedom of worship under the proposals. We want life, as far as we possibly we can, to keep going as normally as possible. We want the economy to keep moving. The best hope I can offer my hon. Friend’s constituents, for whom he fights so valiantly, is that we get this virus back under control, take the country forward and keep the economy moving. That is the best prospect for our country.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister think that the reason Germany and Italy have far lower covid rates than us, with life continuing more or less normally, might be that they have locally and publicly run test and trace services that actually work?
The Prime Minister
No, I don’t, and I think the continual attacks on local test and trace and what NHS Test and Trace has done are undermining and unnecessary. Actually, there is an important difference between our country and many other countries around the world: our country is a freedom-loving country. If we look at the history of this country over the past 300 years, virtually every advance, from free speech to democracy, has come from this country. It is very difficult to ask the British population uniformly to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary. What we are saying today is that collectively—I am answering the right hon. Gentleman’s question directly—the way to do that is for us all to follow the guidelines, which we will strictly enforce, and get the R down. That is the way forward.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Appreciating the frustrations of people who currently have symptoms and are finding it difficult to get tests, does my right hon. Friend agree that with capacity going up by over 10% in the past few weeks, four new labs coming online and hundreds of additional staff, we can reach our target of half a million tests a day by the end of October? Does he agree that that would be an amazing achievement against a virus that we were only first learning about a few short months ago?
The Prime Minister
It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I fervently agree with the way he characterises the achievements of NHS Test and Trace. His optimism and encouragement of NHS Test and Trace could reasonably be echoed by those on the Opposition Benches.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Manchester is home to two of the largest universities in the country, with a combined student body of nearly 80,000, many of whom choose to live in my constituency. With so many students returning to the area, this is an incredibly difficult time for the community, and for students and their families, who are concerned for their safety. With the surge in infections and the second wave now in evidence, what advice do the Government intend to give to universities on keeping their students, staff and the wider community safe?
The Prime Minister
The most important thing is that the students who are now back at university in large numbers should, like everybody else, follow the guidelines. It is also important that, where there are outbreaks in universities, students should not be going home to infect their older relatives.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The districts of Wealden and Rother, which comprise my constituency, have in the past week each recorded just four covid conditions per 100,000 of population. The Prime Minister said that palpable progress will need to be made if the new measures are not to last six months. Will he consider freeing areas with lower rates from the restrictions earlier, if progress is made across the nation?
The Prime Minister
Of course, and that is why we are putting our hopes and confidence in a local, regional approach, rather than a blanket, one-size-fits-all national approach. We hope that those areas that are complying with the rules—and the vast majority of people are complying with the rules—will be able to see the opportunities that my hon. Friend describes.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister calls it NHS test and trace, but would it not be more accurate to call it Serco test and trace, as it has been outsourced, like other health contracts, often to friends and family members of Tory MPs, lining their pockets while taking the public for a ride? Despite its record of failure, last week Serco was handed another test and trace contract, worth £45 million. These giant corporations put private profit before public health. Is it not time to end the scandal of outsourcing and bring these contracts into public hands for a genuine NHS test and trace?
The Prime Minister
I have to say that I think the hon. Lady is grossly undermining the huge effort of local authorities, which are an integral part of NHS test and trace. They are doing a magnificent job and I thank each and every one of those individuals for what they are doing. We are putting another £300 million into supporting our local authorities deliver test and trace, and of course it is right that we should reach out across the entire UK economy, and our armed services, to help them and us deliver on this enormous project, and we will continue to do so.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I welcome the work that has been done across the four nations in recent days, as people expect our Governments to work together and unite as we tackle this virus, but given that the restrictive measures could be with us across the UK for the next six months or longer, what guarantee can the Prime Minister give that the UK Government will continue to support Scottish employers and workers in areas affected by the measures when the furlough scheme ends?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and, as I have said to Scottish colleagues across the House, we will continue to put our arms around workers and firms—businesses and jobs—across the country. That is why the furlough scheme was rolled out—the most imaginative and generous of any such scheme in Europe. As I have said, we are providing for every person in Scotland an extra £1,200 to help fight coronavirus, and £5.3 billion more was announced just this summer alone. The people of Scotland and the people of the whole UK can count on this Government to stand by them throughout the crisis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, but can he confirm that scheduled surgery—such as hip replacements, removal of tonsils, cancer surgeries, and diabetic screening and treatment—will continue with high standards of protection in place, that we will not see people falling through the gaps, and that where there are long waiting lists they will be reduced?
The Prime Minister
The whole objective of trying to prevent another boom in coronavirus suffering—a boom in coronavirus patients—is to protect the NHS and allow scheduled surgery of the kind the hon. Gentleman describes to continue.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Unfortunately, in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, schools such as the Excel Academy and Ormiston Horizon Academy have staff and students testing positive for coronavirus. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about staff and students being away from the classroom as they await testing? Does he agree that schools should be prioritised for testing to ensure that both staff and students are back in the classroom as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed, and I want to thank the staff and students in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country for the 99.9% of schools that are now back open. The vast majority of pupils are back in their schools, and they should have confidence to be there. They are in the right place; it is by far the best place for them to be. We are sending out new test kits the whole time and there is an online portal through which every school can now access the tests that they need.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool begins local lockdown measures today. When restrictions were first imposed six months ago, the Prime Minister outlined a package of financial support for local government. We did all that was asked of us, but we have now been left with a £23 million funding gap. What support is the Prime Minister able to announce today for hard-hit councils?
The Prime Minister
As I have told the hon. Lady before, I believe that we have put about £3.7 billion into supporting local government. We will continue to support local government, and I will look at the £23 million funding gap that she raises with me today.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Working from home has been great for many, such as senior managers living in larger properties with nice gardens, but that has not been the experience for a great many others living in cramped, overcrowded accommodation. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there will be dismay today among those people for whom a return to covid-secure workplaces has been so important for their mental, physical and social wellbeing? It feels like it will be a long six months for them, having to work back in their own homes.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, but it is important that he should not misunderstand what we are saying today. Where people must go into work for their job, their mental health, their wellbeing or whatever it happens to be, then of course they should do so. What we are saying is that they should work from home if they can, and I hope he appreciates the distinction and gives his constituents that reassurance.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor pledged at the start of this crisis that the UK Government would do “whatever it takes” to help people, and the Prime Minister has said today that he will put his arms around the workers of this country. If these statements are to be believed, will the Prime Minister commit to extending the furlough, to save jobs in Motherwell and Wishaw and across the UK and, for those not in work, will he make permanent the £20 uplift in universal credit and extend it to all legacy benefits?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the hon. Lady draws attention to the increase in universal credit, which is probably worth about £4,000 to the poorest families in our country. I am also proud of what we have done on the living wage. I can tell her that of course we will continue to support people across the country, but to repeat my point, the most important thing is for the economy to keep moving, for jobs to be created and for people to get back into work.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My constituency, as part of Kirklees, goes back into local restrictions today, and we have just heard about the new measures that could last up to six months, taking us through the busy Christmas period. Will the Prime Minister ask the Chancellor if he will now lay out a financial support package for hospitality, including the likes of the wedding industry, marquee companies, small breweries, freelance musicians and performers, event venues and many more, whose livelihoods will be impacted by the measures he has announced today?
The Prime Minister
The sectors that my hon. Friend refers to have in many respects already been provided for and supported, but clearly there will be further demands. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be applying his imagination and creativity to helping those sectors in the months ahead, but the best thing for them is to get back to life as close to normal as possible by getting this virus down. That is the point of the package of measures that we are announcing today.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Last week I received a letter from the Health Minister informing me that a new covid testing centre would be available for my Stockport constituents some 240 miles away at the University of Greenwich campus in Kent. I am willing to accept that this might have been an administrative error, but it is entirely possible that the letter is accurate, given that many of my constituents are already having travel more than 70 miles for a test in Telford. Is it not time that this Government got a grip and provided comprehensive testing like our partner countries, or will their shambolic handling of the pandemic once again lead to the highest covid death toll in Europe in the imminent second wave?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that I must correct the hon. Gentleman’s figures. We are now testing more than any other country in Europe, and the median journey is, I think, about 5.8 miles. No journey is permitted to be more than 75 miles, so I do not recognise the figures that I have heard from him.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
My constituency is one of several under local measures, and has been for several weeks, so I would like to pay tribute to my constituents—the businesses, individuals and families who have made great sacrifices to keep this country safe. In welcoming today’s statement, may I ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that this represents a circuit break and not a hard-wiring of policy, and that as it is reviewed we will follow all the scientific data to ensure that we get back to normal as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, the intention of these measures is collectively to depress the R but to keep the economy and education functioning. That is what we are trying to do.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister, for the sake of absolute clarity and to remove any doubt about potential mixed messaging, please confirm that the measures he has announced today in the national context do not supersede or dilute the more stringent measures announced last week for Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and Durham, where case numbers have, sadly, been growing rapidly, despite a local reduction in testing capacity? Will he also confirm what additional support he will put in place for businesses and workers in the north-east in sectors where activity has been greatly reduced by covid restrictions?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is completely right in what he says about the areas currently in local lockdown measures. We are, of course, giving them extra support to get them through lockdown, as he would expect.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all those on the frontline at the covid-19 test centres and in the labs? They are working incredibly hard to keep up with the unprecedented demand as we grow our testing capacity to 500,000 a day by the end of October.
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank each and every one of the people involved in NHS test and trace. They are doing an outstanding job, in spite of the massive increase in demand, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has paid tribute to them just now.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
How does the Prime Minister justify recent reports that every child at Eton gets a covid test, while 10% of children and staff at Gill Blowers nursery in Luton have to stay at home and isolate while they wait for tests that show no sign of coming? Can he tell us how many schoolchildren are self-isolating because they cannot afford to buy their own tests and why, if there is so much spare capacity, not every child can get a test when they need it?
The Prime Minister
Every child with symptoms should automatically get a test—that is, everybody with symptoms should get a test. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are massively expanding testing across the country. I repeat the points that I made earlier: it is one of the few things for which we can be thankful in this epidemic, that the virus affects children and young people—the youngest of all—much less than older people, and there is much less evidence that they pass covid on in the way that other people do.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to support our heroic staff at Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, as well as care staff and indeed residents in care homes, is to reinforce the central message of washing our hands, maintaining social distancing and wearing face coverings where appropriate?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts it very well and very succinctly, and I really could not add anything to what he said.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
One of the most shocking aspects of the coronavirus pandemic has been the disproportionate impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic residents. When Public Health England published a report documenting that injustice, the Government were warned that they needed to act immediately to stop further preventable deaths, but we have seen no urgency. The chair of the British Medical Association is now warning that Government inaction will lead to more preventable deaths of black, Asian and minority ethnic residents over the winter. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
I have already mentioned that we have done a great deal to target measures to protect those in frontline jobs, including many from black and minority ethnic groups. I thank and pay tribute to those public servants, many of whom have done such a fantastic job throughout this crisis at great personal risk. I really thank them for what they are doing, and we are doing everything we can to protect them. Where there are vulnerable communities that need to understand the guidance about coronavirus, we are doing everything we can to get the messages home. Those are just some of the things that the Government are doing.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend say to what extent the measures he has announced today are being co-ordinated with the devolved Administrations? I raise the issue because in Wales different arrangements have sometimes been the cause of confusion, not least because most Welsh residents take their news from the London-based media.
The Prime Minister
Actually, over the last few weeks and months, there has been an exceptionally high degree of collaboration between the UK Government and all the devolved Administrations. Yesterday, I had good conversations with Mark Drakeford about what he is doing, and it bears an uncanny resemblance to what the rest of the UK is doing.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Clarity is key to public trust. Many people have been confused by the Government’s mixed messages on public health measures. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that none of his Ministers or advisers will contradict the rules he has set out today, and that if they do so, they will be disciplined?
The Prime Minister
It is up to all of us to obey the guidance and to urge everybody in this country to obey the guidance and follow the rules, because that is the way we will defeat the virus.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Blyth Valley has recently faced tighter restrictions as an immediate response to a rise in local cases. I know that these measures are necessary in controlling this deadly virus, but they have a real impact on families, businesses and local communities. I welcome the decision yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to lift the ban on informal childcare; I know that that move will be a relief to many of my constituents. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to continue to do all he can to support families through this tough time?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the way he represents Blyth Valley. I can tell him that we will continue to listen to people and to respond to their concerns in any way that we can.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
With 2.4 million households in the UK facing fuel poverty this winter, a figure that will only be exacerbated by the pandemic, will the Prime Minister consider introducing a one-off covid-19 winter fuel payment to every household at risk?
The Prime Minister
We will consider all sorts of measures to alleviate poverty and suffering in the months ahead. The best thing we can do is to follow this package of measures scrupulously, drive down the virus and keep the economy moving.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The last six months have been tough for our country, and it sounds as though the next six months will be too. It is vital that we take our constituents with us and that they have confidence in and understand what is being asked of them. At the beginning of the lockdown, the Prime Minister looked into the camera and said, “I need to level with you, folks,” and the nation sat up and listened. Can we have more of those “level with you” moments, where the Government give clear and consistent data, with clear explanations of how the regulations are working and why, rather than leaving the people at the mercy of covid deniers, so-called independent experts and professors of hindsight?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will do everything we can to share the data with Parliament in real time and give colleagues the opportunity to debate and discuss the issues. I think the more that colleagues are able to look at the facts and study them, the more they will see that a balanced, proportionate approach such as the one we are taking today is the right one.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank all those working on testing, because they are doing remarkable and life-saving work, but that does not mean that the Prime Minister can simply brush off serious questions about failures in systems on something so crucial to this fight. First, has he now fixed the problems in the UK Lighthouse lab system that have negatively affected Wales and caused the Welsh Government to have to plug the gaps? Secondly, is it true, as Dido Harding has said, that people will have to pay for his so-called moonshot tests?
The Prime Minister
We are not only fixing the problems; as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are building four more Lighthouse labs. On the machines in question that needed to be supplied, we have secured them, and we are moving forward. I am confident that we will have the capacity to do 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. That is an extraordinary thing. On the ambition for mass testing, I think that is a great thing, and the Government will support it.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The last lockdown, which was quite severe, did succeed in reducing the spread of the virus, but it did not eradicate it. What confidence can we have that these measures will actually eradicate it to the extent that we will not be in this Chamber in six months’ time discussing further lockdown measures? What discussions has the Prime Minister had with scientists and health experts to find a proper way forward?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend asks a most important question. The virus is not one that is readily capable of being eradicated, and what we have to do is drive it down as far as we possibly can, keep it under control and restrict outbreaks as fast and as far as we possibly can. Riding to our rescue and to the rescue of the economy will be several things. First, I think that we will be able to continue with the measures that we have to control the virus and to get the R down, provided people obey—
The Prime Minister
Forgive me, Mr Speaker. Provided people obey the guidelines we have set out.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Sadly, the reason we are facing greater restrictions is that the Government have failed to establish an effective testing system. My constituent was not able to access a test for her son, who was sent home from school and asked to travel 300 miles for a test. Despite the fact that I raised her case in the Chamber last week and received assurances from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, she still cannot get a test and has still had no contact. When will the Prime Minister fix the testing system?
The Prime Minister
I increasingly think it is disgraceful that the Labour Opposition continue to blame NHS Test and Trace for the resurgence of the disease. There is a complete hiatus in their logic. They are talking absolute nonsense. Testing and tracing has very little or nothing to do with the spread or the transmission of the disease. The spread and the transmission of the disease is caused by contact between human beings and all the things that we are trying to minimise. Of course NHS Test and Trace is vital, but the way to fix the problem now is for the whole country to follow this package of guidance, drive the R down and allow both education and the economy to continue. There is a complete flaw in the Opposition’s logic.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is clear that the country is now living with covid, probably for six months but maybe longer. We know that life changes, so will he commit to regular reviews of these measures, to ensure their necessity? As life keeps going, we need families, so will he consider an early review of the rule of six for primary school children, so that they can meet grandparents, cousins and aunts?
The Prime Minister
We will, of course, keep all these measures under review continually. None of them are measures that we want to bring in, but they are measures that we believe are necessary, and I am delighted that they are supported by the Labour party.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I accept the need for these restrictions, but the Prime Minister must know that they come at the worst possible time for hospitality and tourism in Cumbria, the lakes and dales and elsewhere, because furlough is ending just as the low season begins. He could back the targeted package proposed by the tourism industry and me to save jobs and businesses through these tough winter months, or he could cost the taxpayer billions in benefits and lost tax revenue by letting them all go to the wall. Will he meet me and tourism and hospitality industry leaders, so that we can find a solution and save jobs?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he says on behalf of the tourism and hospitality industry in his area, which is a fantastic place to visit. I certainly undertake to ensure that his delegation is able to meet the relevant Minister to find a way forward. We will continue to support tourism and hospitality, as we have throughout this crisis.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement during these difficult times and congratulate him on rising to the challenge. It is such a shame that the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members have not always had a positive and constructive approach, given the severity of the situation. In my constituency, I have been campaigning hard for our high streets, which are facing challenge after challenge. What support can my right hon. Friend give retailers in these difficult circumstances?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what she says. The best thing we can do for retail, which we opened up again in June, is to ensure that we keep it open and that people can keep going to the shops in a covid-secure way, including on the high streets in Morley and Outwood. That is the way to take our country forward. But the way to do it is to follow this package of measures to the letter. I am delighted that it has Opposition support, which, as she rightly says, is not uniform or everyday, but we have got it today. Let us work with it and get that message across to the country.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Through the testing scheme, we have seen that the BAME population has suffered most from covid-19. What assurances can the Prime Minister give that ethnic minority communities can be prioritised for testing? My constituency has a high Bangladeshi population, which has suffered the highest number of excess deaths of any ethnic group. That community is devastated. It really needs assurances that it will be prioritised for testing, along with other ethnic groups.
The Prime Minister
We grieve for what has happened in black and minority ethnic communities. The hon. Lady is right in what she says about the Bangladeshi community. We will do everything we can to get all the groups in our country that need testing the testing they deserve as fast as we possibly can. All I can tell her is that we have hugely expanded our testing capacity. There is a hierarchy of need, of priority groups, which she will have seen. We will do everything we can to ensure that black and minority ethnic groups get the support and protections they need, in addition to the measures that we have already taken, which I outlined earlier.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Constituents who have spent a lifetime in public service wrote to me over the weekend saying, “We are on the point of giving up”. Churchill said he had nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat, but Jeremiah 29 talks about giving us hope and a future. What can the Prime Minister say to people to give them hope over the next six months as we deal with this dismal pandemic?
The Prime Minister
I think we have every hope. You cut me off, Mr Speaker, when I was going to answer an earlier question—quite properly. The answer is that we have every chance, if we follow this package of measures, of driving the R down, keeping our economy moving and keeping education going. Science is helping us every day. Dexamethasone, trialled in this country, is now reducing the number of deaths. We have the prospect of a vaccine. All the medical guidance I have is that, by next spring, things will be vastly improved. I do not deny for a minute that things are going to be tough for our country and our people for months to come, but we will get through it, and we will get through it well, particularly if we follow the package that we announced today.
Point of Order
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Monday, after speculation about Merseyside being placed into a local lockdown, I contacted Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care to ask for a briefing for me and other MPs in the region. I contacted their offices directly, by telephone and email, every day last week and had no reply or even acknowledgement.
As you will know, Mr Speaker, on Friday, news of a lockdown in large parts of the north-west was released by the Government to the media and the public. Hundreds of my constituents and, I expect, yours, were in touch over the weekend. I still had not received contact of any kind from the Department until I was offered a meeting yesterday, days after the announcement, which was frankly neither use nor ornament.
I realise that we have suspended normal practices in the House, but I had not realised that we had ended established courtesies. Could you advise how I and many other hon. and right hon. Members might get the Government to understand that MPs want to assist in communicating the importance of these vital messages to our constituents, but that, if we do not know what they are, we cannot?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wanted to raise a point of order. He is absolutely correct that we have to engage earlier—we should not be waiting and waiting. I remind Ministers and their Departments of the responsibility to contact Members who are going to be affected. This does not help the Department, and it does not help the MP to actually represent their constituents. People in this House are elected to represent their constituents, and Ministers need to respond quickly when Members need information. Of course, it is not a point of order for me, but I hope that the Treasury Bench, and all other Departments, will have picked up on that. Members matter. MPs are elected. I expect those responses early, not at Ministers’ convenience, when the weekend’s gone and time has followed. No further comments on the point of order.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land)
Tuesday 22nd September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land) Bill 2019-21 View all Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for increased fines for failures to comply with a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
We are incredibly lucky as a nation to have such a vast and well-documented history. The built history is our physical connection to the past and those who came before us. As Members we feel that connection each time we walk through the ancient Westminster Hall, but whether it is the great beams that support its roof, or the narrow terraces and redbrick factories of our industrial heartlands, all have equal importance and all must be protected. Therefore, the law must allow the courts the flexibility to punish those who seek to destroy our heritage, and that is what I seek today through the introduction of this Bill.
Some in our nation do not share our passion to protect and preserve our history. Rogue landlords and property owners are endangering the historic buildings that we must preserve as a nation. This is a national issue, but I wish to use an example of a historic building in my own constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke to illustrate our plight. The once glorious 18th-century teapot works Price and Kensington sits just outside the mother town of Burslem. The site is privately owned and has fallen into serious disrepair at great expense to the taxpayer of Stoke-on-Trent.
Price and Kensington is a large complex of factory buildings situated next to the Trent and Mersey canal and is a grade II* listed building. It is of national importance: it is the only such factory left in existence that demonstrates how the pottery industry evolved over time. Sadly, though, due to the actions of a rogue owner, most of the buildings are not safe for use. Damage is being caused by the systematic removal of slates and windows by the rogue owner, who is determined to do all he can to destroy this building, leaving him with a vacant site to sell for profit—a profit at the expense of our built heritage and of the taxpayer.
The owner knows that the punishment for breaking the law in such a way is weak. He knows he can get away with it. As well as removing structural parts of the building, the rogue owner has illegally let parts of it out to individuals under investigation for drug offences, human trafficking and the illegal disposal of hazardous waste. The site is regularly subjected to arsonists and thieves, who seek to light the flammable material the owner has placed across the site.
In October 2019, the condition of the historic front range of buildings, which sat directly adjacent to a strategic road, was collapsing. Despite notices being served on the owner to carry out repairs, the council had no option but to demolish this section of the building on the site under the Building Act 1984 and to seek compensation from the owner by placing a charge on the land. It was either that or having the building collapse on to passing traffic.
This was not the first time that Stoke-on-Trent City Council intervened at Price and Kensington. Most notably, over the past four years, the council’s planning and enforcement team have launched numerous actions against the owners, all at the expense of the taxpayer. This House is aware of the duties placed upon local authorities by law to protect heritage assets. However, the responsibilities that rest upon the owner, especially an unco-operative owner, are not as they ought to be. This can leave taxpayers massively out of pocket.
Sections 215 and 216 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provide legislative routes for local authorities to act against owners who do not repair their buildings. If a landlord or an owner, as in the case of Price and Kensington, refuses to adhere to a section 215 notice, the provisions laid out in section 216 come into force. The failure to comply with the notice is an offence that can lead to a conviction and a fine. However— and here we arrive at the crux of the issue—the maximum fine for this offence is a level 3 on the standard scale: a mere £1,000. If the notice is still not complied with, the legislation allows for a daily fine of up to £100 on a second conviction. Alternatively, the local authority can carry out the works and place a charge on the land to recover costs. However, in areas such as mine, where land values are low, as is the case in many former industrial towns and cities, this is not a financially viable option for the council.
To demonstrate that, let us look at the figures. The cost of repairs for Price and Kensington are estimated to be well over £5 million. The land is valued at only £70,000. Last year, magistrates at North Staffordshire Justice Centre found Middlesex-based Charles Lewis & Co. guilty of failing to comply with a notice issued by the city council. It was handed a £1,000 fine, a £100 victim surcharge and a £530 fine for council costs. A £1,000 fine is not even 1% of the site value.
In situations such as the one I have described, the local authority is essentially left with two limited but costly options. The first is an urgent works notice under section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This can apply only to repairs in unoccupied sections and related to weather-proofing and keeping the building safe from collapse. If the owner takes no action, the council must carry out the repairs and invoice the owner. This is often converted to a land charge through the courts, meaning that the council and, again, the taxpayer is effectively left to foot the bill, letting rich property owners and developers off the hook.
The second option is to issue a repairs notice under section 47 of that Act. This notice requires a landlord or owner to carry out reasonable works to protect and preserve the building, notably if there is architectural or historical significance to the site. The council must create a detailed schedule of works, and if they are not carried out, the only option left to the council is to issue a compulsory purchase order. There are no other legal or financial penalties for non-compliance with the notice and the works cannot be carried out in default by the council. These restrictions and meaningless punitive measures often render local councils tied at the wrists, as the outcomes as outlined in legislation do very little to alleviate the finances and efforts expended during the process by the local authority. It is imperative that we increase the fines that can be levied on the owners who allow heritage negligence.
Although Price and Kensington is the most damning example of this disregard in the constituency I serve, there are many other buildings with similar dilemmas across Stoke-on-Trent, from the Central Hotel in Burslem to Commerce works in Longton. However, this is an issue not just for the Potteries, but across the country. The successful passage of this Bill will help hundreds of historic buildings that find themselves in a similar state to Price and Kensington. Birnbeck pier in Weston-super-Mare is privately owned with an owner unwilling to co-operate. What about the Walton Works in Chesterfield? That is another grade II* listed building falling into the ground as the private owner does nothing. The pithead baths at Lynemouth in Northumberland have lain vacant for more than 20 years while the commercial company waits for the building to collapse of its own accord. Shuttleworth Hall in Burnley, a 17th-century building, faces an uncertain future because the law lets the property owner off the hook. A £1,000 fine is much less than the cost of repairing these iconic and protected buildings.
There are more than 5,000 entries on the heritage at risk register. This Bill would enable the relevant authorities to take action against those who destroy this nation’s heritage. That is why I have the unreserved support of Historic England in my endeavour to see the law changed and our nation’s heritage assets protected. Historic England agrees that stiffer penalties are paramount to efficiency, local authorities and the security of our heritage.
In addition, it was a pleasure to have the opportunity to make my case on this issue directly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I hope that the Government will look to include the Bill in the forthcoming planning reform Green Paper.
Our silence so far on this issue has been deafening. We must act now to give the courts the powers to levy unlimited fines against those who destroy the nation’s built heritage. I hope I have the full support of the House for the changes I seek today.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jonathan Gullis, Chris Clarkson, Mrs Pauline Latham, Andrew Rosindell, Aaron Bell, Martin Vickers, Peter Gibson, Tim Loughton, Marco Longhi, Lee Anderson, Simon Hoare and Mr Andrew Mitchell present the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read the Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 184).
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:38 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 63 / Noes: 350 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Clause 1
Purpose of Part 1
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 90.
Amendment 89, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out from “requirements)” to end of line 10 and insert
“must meet the relevant requirements of the part of the United Kingdom with the highest level of standards for that sale of that good.”
This amendment would ensure that any good produced, or imported, into the United Kingdom would have to meet the level of standards for sale of that good in the part of the UK with the highest level standards.
Government amendment 91.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 3, line 24, leave out “consult” and insert “gain the agreement of”.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out “not”.
The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 74, is to ensure that mutual recognition applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.
Amendment 74, page 3, line 36, leave out from “principle” to end of line 10 on page 4.
The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 73, is to ensure that mutual recognition applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.
Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.
Amendment 35, in clause 6, page 5, line 22, leave out “consult” and insert “gain the agreement of”.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Amendment 86, in clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) the promotion of environmental, social and labour standards.”
This amendment would expand the definition of “legitimate aim” that could permit discrimination against incoming goods to include the promotion of environmental, social and labour standards.
Amendment 36, page 6, line 41, after “State” insert
“, after obtaining the agreement of the devolved administrations,”.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 76, in clause 9, page 7, line 4, leave out “not”.
The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 77, is to ensure that the non-discrimination principle applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.
Amendment 77, page 7, line 8, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 76, is to ensure that the non-discrimination principle applies to existing legislation as well as future legislation.
Clause 9 stand part.
Amendment 78, in clause 10, page 7, line 17, at end, insert—
“(2A) In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that further exclusions from the application of the access principles have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.
Clause 10 stand part.
Government amendments 5 and 6.
Amendment 79, in schedule 1, page 44, line 40, at end, insert—
“(6A) In the case that there is one REACH authorisation process for Great Britain, an authorisation that is lawful for the Northern Ireland market will be valid for the Great Britain market.”
The intention of this amendment is to apply the non-discrimination principle to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regime.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 80, page 45, line 2, at end insert—
“(8A) The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to fisheries within the jurisdiction of Scottish Government Ministers.”
This amendment would exempt fisheries in Scotland from market access principles.
Amendment 87, page 45, line 23, at end insert—
“11 The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any legislation so far as it relates to public procurement.”
This amendment would include specific reference to public procurement within those areas of regulation that are exempt from market access principles under Schedule 1.
Schedule 1 stand part.
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Government amendments 93 to 95.
Amendment 40, in clause 14, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(8A) A reference in this Part to “regulations” must take into account the requirements of section (Maintenance of minimum standards).”
Government amendment 92.
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendments 97 to 107.
Clause 15 stand part.
Government amendment 108.
Clause 16 stand part.
Government amendments 112 and 111.
Schedule 2 stand part.
Clauses 17 to 20 stand part.
Government amendments 109 and 110.
Clause 21 stand part.
Amendment 81, in clause 22, page 13, line 33, after “23)” insert “or frontier worker”.
This amendment would accord to frontier workers the rights accorded to qualifying UK residents under this clause, to have experience or qualifications awarded in one part of the UK to be recognised in another part.
Amendment 82, page 13, line 34, after “resident” insert “or frontier worker”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 81.
Amendment 83, page 13, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Part, “Frontier worker” shall have the meaning given in Article 9(b) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 81.
Clauses 22 and 23 stand part.
Amendment 84, in clause 24, page 15, line 2, after “resident” insert “or frontier worker”.
This amendment would accord the same rights to frontier workers as to qualifying UK residents under this clause.
Amendment 85, page 15, line 9, leave out “, the resident” and insert “or frontier worker, the resident or frontier worker”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 84.
Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 27, in clause 27, page 19, line 42, after “training” insert
“that has been agreed and approved by the devolved ministers”.
Clause 27 stand part.
Government new clause 12—Guidance relating to Part 1.
New clause 5—Maintenance of minimum standards—
“Regulations under this Part must not result in lower food or environmental standards applying in any part of the United Kingdom than apply in the European Union.”
New clause 10—Environmental derogation for market access principles—
“The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of) any legislation or other requirement so far as—
(a) its purpose is to protect the environment, and
(b) it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
The purpose of this new clause is to provide for exceptions and derogations that allow all four UK nations to put in place proportionate measures to protect the environment and improve environmental standards.
Amendment 72, in clause 48, page 38, line 49, at end insert “or
(b) has the effect of making Northern Ireland businesses less competitive in the Great Britain market.”
The intention of this amendment is to include within the definition of distortive or harmful subsidies a subsidy which has the effect of making NI businesses less competitive in the GB market.
Clause 48 stand part.
Amendment 88, in clause 49, page 39, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment would prevent the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 from being inserted into Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998, meaning that this Bill would not become a “protected enactment” under that legislation.
Clauses 49 and 51 to 53 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 54, page 41, line 24, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant sections of this Act come into force in accordance only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons specifying on which date a relevant section comes into force, and
(b) that motion is approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
(2B) The relevant sections for the purposes of subsection (2A) are sections 42, 43 and 45.”
This amendment would prevent any of sections 42 (Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures), 43 (Regulations about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol) and 45 (Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc) coming into force before the House of Commons had approved by resolution the date from which they would take effect.
Amendment 9, page 41, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(2A) The other provisions of this Act may not come into force (and in particular no additions may be made to Part 2 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (specific reservations), Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (specific reservations) or Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (excepted matters)) until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed in Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of those provisions coming into force.”
This amendment would ensure that no additional powers are reserved to Westminster through this Bill unless the devolved legislatures of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland give their consent.
Government amendment 66.
Amendment 39, page 41, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made before a legislative consent motion relating to this Act has been approved by the each of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would require the remainder of the Act to have gained consent of the devolved legislatures before coming into effect.
Clause 54 stand part.
New clause 9—UK Council of Ministers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish no later than three months from the date on which this Act is passed a framework for a UK Council of Ministers to be agreed by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) The responsibilities of the UK Council of Ministers must include—
(a) considering the UK Government’s use of financial assistance for economic development in terms of section 46 of this Act;
(b) considering the terms of any reports prepared by the Competition and Markets Authority in terms of section 29 of this Act;
(c) considering the extent to which its members have acted in a manner consistent with the devolved settlement;
(d) reviewing and considering the impact of any aspect of the internal market of the United Kingdom on any part of the United Kingdom;
(e) requesting that the Secretary of State take specific necessary action to facilitate policy objectives in an area within the competence of the Secretary of State.
(3) The membership of the UK Council of Ministers must include representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom and its devolved administrations.”
This new clause establishes a UK Council of Ministers to ensure the effective functioning of the Internal Market and to examine spending under this Bill.
New clause 11—Review of the Act—
“(1) Within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament on the dates on which each section—
(a) was commenced; or
(b) is planned to be commenced.
(2) The Secretary of State must arrange for a review to be carried out within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, and thereafter at least once in each calendar year on the operation of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State must invite the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to contribute to the reviews in subsection (2).
(4) The reviews under subsection (2) must make an assessment of—
(a) the functioning of the United Kingdom internal market;
(b) the effectiveness of market access principles;
(c) progress towards agreeing common frameworks with the devolved administrations;
(d) progress towards drawing up a shared prosperity fund framework; and
(e) progress in resolving issues through the Joint Committee machinery in the Withdrawal Agreement.
(5) The Prime Minister must arrange for a report of any review under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after its completion.”
The intention of this new clause is to provide Parliament with information on the working of this Act in the context of developing common frameworks.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. This Cummings-directed Tory UK Government are breaking international law, and they are breaking devolution. Behind the innocent-sounding mutual recognition mechanism, the Bill simply starts a race to the bottom on standards with the UK Government imposing it against our will in Scotland.
The Bill will see the Tories mount an assault on devolution with the biggest power grab since the Scottish Parliament was re-established. People in Scotland are seeing through the contempt that the Tory Government and Westminster have for their democratic choices. They are not daft. They know that this shabby, illegal, dogmatic Bill is not designed to fix anything, but it is designed to game the system for vested interests.
It is a fact that existing mechanisms and simple changes to Standing Orders could have worked with consensus instead, but this Government do not believe in consensus, just in getting their own narrow ideological way.
The UK Government’s approach—the diktat—is the opposite of the democratic European single market approach. The development of the EU single market has been based on the principles of equality, co-operation, co-decision, subsidiarity and, of course, consent. Crucially, it sets a baseline of minimum agreed standards with which all member states’ own rules must be compatible. What a contrast with this hasty, badly written, contemptuous Bill. The Government are even having to amend their own Bill as they go along, so shabby is it. Government amendment 109 is necessary to remove clause 20—how slapdash is that?
On the mutual recognition mechanism, clauses 2 to 9 contain sweeping powers to compel Scotland to accept lower standards, set elsewhere in the UK, on animal welfare, food safety and environmental protections, among a host of other areas.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. One issue raised by the General Teaching Council for Scotland is that teachers in Scotland must adhere to certain professional standards. That is not the case in England. If professional qualifications were accepted across the United Kingdom, Scotland would potentially have to accept teachers with lower professional standards. That is a real concern for the GTC in Scotland. Does he share that concern?
Drew Hendry
I do indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. As I mentioned in my speech last week, the Bill affects every aspect of Scottish public life. These powers radically undermine the ability of the Scottish Parliament to serve the people who elected it.
The UK Government want to ditch high regulatory standards. They continually refuse to confirm whether the UK will keep pace with EU standards after 31 December. They will not even rule out chlorinated chicken being forced into our marketplaces. The question has to be asked: why keep that prospect on our tables? It is because they are betting all of our farms on a US trade deal. They have put everything on black, hoping for a Trump victory. The irony is that if it comes up red, with a Biden win, the Bill puts any trade deal in trouble, because the presidential candidate has said that he will not put up with anything that undermines the Northern Ireland-Ireland peace process.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Member is absolutely right that there will be no trade deal if any damage is done to the Good Friday agreement or the protocol. It is also the case that the Houses of Congress have to ratify any trade deal, so no matter who wins the White House, it is clear that Congress will not support a US-UK trade deal after any damage is done to the Good Friday agreement.
Drew Hendry
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. His point that the Good Friday agreement is being put in jeopardy is absolutely spot on. That is why the Government are betting on a Trump victory. President Trump has declared that when it comes to doing business with the UK, as far as he is concerned
“everything is on the table.”
The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said of the trade talks:
“We need to make sure that we don’t use food safety as a ruse to try and protect a particular industry.”
The Government have even voted against their own Back Benchers’ amendments to protect high standards. They voted five times against amendments to the Agriculture Bill, and five times against food standards amendments to the Trade Bill.
The effect of clauses 2 to 9 would be to prevent the Scottish Parliament from requiring goods or services to meet the standards that it decides. The UK Government’s White Paper outlined examples of this. Page 77 has a case study on deposit return schemes, page 78 has one on food labelling and pages 79 to 82 cover food manufacturing, including hygiene, recycling and animal welfare. On page 82, it specifically mentions minimum pricing as a regulatory restriction. Page 85 talks about building regulations and construction permits. As Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University observes, Scotland’s minimum price controls could be
“characterised as a form of product requirement”,
making them
“fully subject to the principle of mutual recognition.”
This would mean that
“imported English alcohol would not have to comply with any new Scottish requirements. Once the mutual recognition obligation applies, there is virtually no scope for Scotland…to justify applying its new rules to English imports: mutual recognition can only be set aside on the basis of serious health threats arising from the internal movement of pests/diseases/unsafe foodstuffs.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern that Professor Dougan also draws attention to the fact that policies that already exist under the auspices of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, if they were to be adapted, might then fall within the scope of this Bill. These are popular policies that we have made to cut our own path in the past, and yet this now threatens their future.
Drew Hendry
Indeed—I agree. In fact, Professor Dougan has said:
“I do not share UKGov’s apparent assumption that regulatory divergence is inherently problematic and must be strictly controlled, by imposing extensive limits (in effect) on the ability of devolved institutions to make different choices from Westminster”.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his very carefully crafted amendment 89, which would mean a race to the top as opposed to the race to the bottom that he has alluded to.
Drew Hendry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Of course, that is where we all should be aiming—a race to the top. That should be the principle that is being set by elected Members in the Parliaments that they are elected to represent, yet we find here a complete travesty of that.
Devolution has proved that the market can successfully operate across the UK with variations in standards. This Bill’s proposals work against the interests of our high-quality producers and our consumers. As the National Farmers Union of Scotland explained in its submission to the UK Government’s White Paper consultation, the proposals for the UK internal market, in the absence of effective common frameworks, could trigger a race to the bottom. In a Scottish context at the very least, they could force a choice between upholding high standards of production or maintaining the competitiveness of agricultural businesses.
The existing common frameworks were designed to manage cross-UK divergence where EU law and competences intersect. They do not need to be supplemented or undermined. Scottish Environment Link is clear that the UK Government’s plans could
“force Scotland to follow the lowest common denominator, especially where countries negotiating bilateral trade deals with the UK demand lower standards seriously undermining efforts to combat climate change and biodiversity decline.”
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I am interested in why the hon. Gentleman seems to assume that any standards legislated for in this Parliament would inherently always be lower, as he puts it. Why would that necessarily be the case?
Drew Hendry
Perhaps you should ask your hon. and right hon. Friends on your Back Benches who voted against your own Back Benchers’ amendments to protect—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not address another hon. Member directly. When he uses the word “you”, he is talking about me, and I am sure he would not want to do that.
Drew Hendry
You will notice, Dame Rosie, that it is a very uncommon mistake I have made, in that case. I take the scolding in good grace. Thank you, indeed.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his colleagues why they voted five times on the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill against protecting these standards. We know—the Scottish public know—what this is all about. They are not daft; they see this. They see that this grubby attempt to make sure that we can get a deal—any deal as long as it is not with the EU—is the reason these things are being sacrificed.
This Tory UK Government do not care about the views of the experts that we have quoted here today or of the groups that are concerned about these issues. They do not want to hear those views. They simply want to oversee the biggest power grab in the history of devolution.
Clause 48 reserves state aid. We know that state aid provisions will mirror those of the World Trade Organisation, making an already diminished deal option with the EU even more difficult. Incidentally, Tory claims about the constraints imposed by EU state aid rules are inevitably always exaggerated. Automatic approvals applied to nearly 95% of state aid last year, and this year the EU acted swiftly to sign off on a raft of Government help to aid industry during the pandemic.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the manner in which authorisations are given? Stating that it has been approved is one thing, but the way in which it has been arrived at—behind closed doors and without anybody knowing how it has been done—is a really big problem.
Drew Hendry
It beggars belief that this kind of intervention attacking EU procedures is being made when the Bill will directly give powers not only to the UK Government to overrule devolution, but to the Secretary of State himself to overrule essentially anything that he wants to. I will return to that point in a moment. The Bill directly undermines the Scottish Parliament’s ability to protect Scottish farmers’ livelihoods. Cheaper meat will drive out quality production. The ability to choose the highest standards in environmental protection and in building control and the ability to keep our NHS and water in public hands will all be affected. The UK Government want private companies to be given a guaranteed right to trade unhindered in Scotland. The UK Government claim that there are exclusions from the principles of non-discrimination, but that is absolutely blown out of the water by the fact that the Secretary of State will retain
“a power to alter these exclusions.”
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants a backdoor deal. Well, there is one for him; he can do it in the Cabinet Room.
Drew Hendry
No, I will make some progress on this.
That is regardless of the views of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does not matter what the devolved Assemblies or Parliaments are saying, that is the ability that the Secretary of State has.
The Law Society Of Scotland warns that clause 8(7) empowers the Secretary of State to amend by adding, varying or removing an aim in clause 8(6). This is a very wide power, and regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Unlike other order-making powers earlier in the Bill, the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consult the devolved Administrations before making such regulations. The Government should explain why clause 8 adopts a different approach from the earlier clauses in this respect.
The real threat to trade comes not from what could have been agreed on common frameworks across the nations of the UK, but from this Tory Government’s incompetent handling of the process to agree a deal with the EU. Their lofty ambitions are now, at best, low deal or no deal following their decision to remove Scotland against its wishes, and of course the rest of the UK, from the EU, a prosperous and highly integrated market no less, with an integrated trade and regulatory partnership of 450 million customers, along with the associated social vandalism that this has inflicted.
By the way, we hear that we should trust this Government. Just in case anybody is under the illusion that we can rely on the altruism of Westminster, they should listen to the words of Tory Luke Graham, who lost his seat in this place in December. Even he could see that it is foolish to do so. He said in this very Parliament:
“To reiterate my point and the frustration that I have felt since I have been in this place, sometimes…it appears that the Treasury is not so much a British Treasury but an English Treasury, which becomes incredibly frustrating for people trying to fight for projects in Scottish constituencies.—[Official Report, 15 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 368WH.]
That was a Tory MP who was in this House until December last year.
The UK Government are breaking international law and devolution. The mutual recognition mechanism fires the starting gun on a race to the bottom on standards, with the UK Government imposing those standards on Scotland against our will. This Bill oversees the biggest power grab since the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, the real threat to trade is the looming no deal or low deal that the Government are railroading through with the EU. It is now clear for all in Scotland to see that the only way to represent the public needs and to protect our way of life and our hard-won Parliament is through becoming an independent nation, taking our own place as an equal partner within the European Union.
Colum Eastwood
It is, of course, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. Did I get those words right? I think I did.
In my view, this Bill is unfixable. It is probably unamendable. It is an assault on international law and an assault on devolution, and I think it is the beginning of the biggest act of economic self-harm for many a year. Our proposed amendments address the fact that the Government have, once again, forgotten about—that is a generous way of putting it—frontier and cross-border workers in Ireland. That is why we have tabled amendments 81 to 85, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna).
Before I get on to those specific amendments, I want quickly to address the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). The amendment seeks to prevent from coming into effect, unless actively approved by the House of Commons, those parts of the Bill that give Ministers the powers to implement, against international law, parts of the Northern Ireland protocol. I fully believe that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine attempt to inject some accountability into this process. However, let me tell hon. Members that people in Northern Ireland have been watching and they have absolutely no faith that this Government have one iota of interest in accountability, international law or the interests of people where I come from.
Sir William Cash
It seems to be generally understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will withdraw his amendment. I do not know whether that has been stated formally yet, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could take into account the fact that that appears to be the case. I do not know whether Mr Speaker is aware of that. Sadly, my hon. Friend is not in his place at the moment, so it is rather difficult for us to be absolutely precise. I wonder whether I could have a ruling from the Chair on whether the amendment has been withdrawn.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is important to remember, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that Sir Robert Neill is not in his place at the moment. It is a question of the amendment having to be moved and withdrawn, neither of which has happened, so I think we need to wait until he is here. At the moment, we work on the assumption, obviously, that it is something that can be discussed.
Colum Eastwood
Thank you, Dame Rosie, and I thank the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his intervention. Regardless of whether the amendment is moved, the principle is utterly ridiculous, because only last week this House voted in full knowledge to allow this Government to break international law. It has voted down every single attempt to prevent this Government from breaking international law, so Opposition Members will be very cautious about waiting around for this Government to check back with this Parliament as to whether or not they are going to break international law.
Our amendments on frontier and cross-border workers are designed to address an anomaly that could have a serious impact on those living and working across our border region and beyond. Clause 22(2) seeks to ensure mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the UK internal market. However, that is limited to UK residents only. Constituencies such as mine are hubs of regional, cross-border economies, where frontier workers, according to the Government’s own European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, are supposed to be respected and protected. They should not face any barriers to continued working, which they would not if they were residents of the United Kingdom. These clauses will mean that someone who works in, for example, Derry, but who lives in Donegal may be unable to work on projects that are UK-wide because their residency is in the Republic of Ireland. These measures would mean that their professional qualifications were not recognised in Scotland, Wales or England. UK residency is not a precondition for practising their profession habitually and properly in Northern Ireland, so why should it be a precondition for them being equally eligible to serve in other parts of the United Kingdom?
Frontier workers are specifically mentioned in articles 9 and 26 of the withdrawal agreement, and the Government tell us that this Bill is in keeping with some undertakings in that agreement, even though it breaches others wholesale, as we have heard over the last two weeks. I am being very generous here; I do not want to presume that the Government have deliberately set their face against frontier workers in these clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and I have tabled our amendments to prevent inadvertent discrimination. Those who might be adversely affected include people who, alongside their quality professional services, also contribute to the community and public life on many levels. Indeed, some have been upstanding public appointees, including through nomination by UK Ministers as well as devolved ones.
An estimated 30,000 people cross our border every day for work. I am not sure that it is quite understood in this Chamber just exactly what it means to live in a border community in Ireland. In Derry, where I come from, we are bordered on three sides by the Republic of Ireland—by Donegal. We socialise on both sides of the border. I get my diesel in Donegal. We have familial ties that stretch across the border. Whatever people’s politics on the constitutional issue, we do not acknowledge the border in our day-to-day lives. That has been a terrific advance since the Good Friday agreement and the removal of the border installations. Although this Government seem determined to threaten to put some of those installations back up again, we are determined to continue to move on with our lives in a very normalised way. I sometimes wonder whether people who write these Bills actually have any understanding of life in a border area. I would prefer it if they came to our border areas, saw what it is like, and tried to understand what it is like for frontier workers and for the rest of us who work and live across that border every single day.
As I have said already, I do not believe that this Bill can be fixed, but there is one part of the Bill that the Government could easily fix if they determined to listen to our amendments and make the changes required. Many people will be left out if they do not do so.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It may be helpful for me to clarify a point for the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). Under the programme order that the House agreed on 14 September, today we are debating: part 1, “UK market access: goods”, except clause 11, which was decided yesterday; part 2, “UK market access: services”; part 3, “Professional qualifications and regulation”; and part 7, “Final provisions”, except clause 50, which was decided yesterday. We therefore need to focus on amendments and new clauses relating to those parts of the Bill. It is quite important that we do not re-run the debates that were held last week and yesterday, which were on: part 4, “Independent advice on and monitoring of UK internal market”; part 6, “Financial assistance powers”; and part 5 “Northern Ireland Protocol”. Sir Bob Neill’s amendment was, in fact, debated yesterday—for the clarification of the hon. Member for Foyle. I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
After that very helpful clarification, I have to say that the issues that I was going to raise would have been related to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). There appears to be some misunderstanding. In these circumstances, I understand that today we will not, in fact, be discussing amendment 66 in the name of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). May I have your ruling on that, Dame Rosie?
The First Deputy Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that.
Sir William Cash
I shall refer, then, to the more general questions about the state aids that I have just heard and that I mentioned in an intervention.
I wish to explain the rationale behind the remarks that I made on Second Reading, when I spoke for only four minutes, and the short speech that I made yesterday dealing exclusively with questions relating to international law and the breaking of it, as is alleged by some. I made my position entirely clear then and wrote a piece published on “ConservativeHome” that has been seen and commented on by many people—with some approval, I am glad to say—and in The Daily Telegraph online. That is now out there, on the record. However, the question of state aids to which I referred in those articles was not really examined in a way that I regard as satisfactory by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I say that because he made a lot of points about the manner in which the results would take place, in his view, under the new Office for the Internal Market, the new internal market arrangements and in the context of devolution.
At an earlier stage, with respect to the issue of the economic prosperity of the United Kingdom as a whole, which obviously includes the important issue of devolution, including our wanting to be properly aware of the issues for Scotland, I mentioned Adam Smith as a good example of a great Scot who really understood the nature of free trade. The problem is the EU itself. We must succeed in ensuring that the state aids policies of the EU no longer apply to the United Kingdom, including Scotland in this context. That is so important that, in the interests of the prosperity of Scotland, no attempt should be made such that Scotland could somehow find itself still following EU state aid rules. That is the burden of what I would like to address.
I have spent 35 years serving on the European Scrutiny Committee. I am Chairman of it now and have been for the past 10 years. I know a little bit about state aids and mentioned yesterday, in passing, my experiences, given the fact that I have been around for a certain amount of time, during the 1950s and ’60s, when I was brought up in Sheffield and witnessed the manner in which the European Coal and Steel Community acted. Of that supranational body, even Sir Con O’Neill, who was the prime negotiator for the United Kingdom in taking us into the European Community, as it was at the time, said in a book that I read fairly recently that nobody in Government really appreciated just how important, significant and, I would say, dangerous it was for the whole concept of state aids and all the things that went with the supranational policies that were imposed as a result of our membership of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, and the effect it would have on jobs and businesses in England, Scotland and Wales.
Of course, in those days devolution was not an issue, but the comparison certainly still applies. The jobs of many people in the coal mining and steel industries in Scotland were decimated, as they were in Sheffield. The greatest and most important part of the world steel industry was in Sheffield. As a result of matters into which I do not need to go in detail, the bottom line is that the grandchildren of the coal miners and steelworkers, whom I got to know extremely well—I think I mentioned in an earlier debate that I played cricket and rugger with them; I knew these people—remember all this.
If we put the red-wall seats on a transparent map and placed it over a map of England, in particular, and Scotland, we would find a direct correlation with the seats where people even would not vote for the UK Independence party but voted Conservative because they knew that leaving the European Community was something they wanted to do, because their grandparents had been decimated by how state aid worked. State aid is not just about subsidies; it is also about taxation, incentives, free ports, carbon emissions and the whole of our trading relationships internationally. It is the most important specific question, which is why I congratulate the Government on what they are seeking to do, although I may prefer it to be a little tighter, but let us leave that for the moment because we have a Report stage to come. I simply say that the people of Scotland know and understand the impact of the policies of state aids in shipbuilding, for example, on Harland and Wolff, in Northern Ireland. These people are all well aware of the almost irreparable damage done.
Sir William Cash
Just a moment. This refers back to what I said earlier when the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey wanted to intervene on me to suggest that somehow or other I was exaggerating the issue, as I am certainly not. The reality is that the EU takes all these decisions behind closed doors; nobody really knows how the authorisations are made; and—surprise, surprise—we could not stop any of those ports regulations, as indeed we could not stop any of the state aids authorisations. That is the essence of it, and he will not be able to explain to the people of Scotland why they will not benefit if the day comes when he gets his way, which I do not think he will, by our ending up removing the state aids from the EU. The people of Scotland would benefit so much by having a system in place that they can deal with on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman puts forward capable arguments. I notice how he weaves his way round these subjects. That is a compliment, in a way, but it does not alter the fact that the people in Scotland will suffer grievously if they continue to have EU regulatory arrangements inflicted on them. The Bill ensures that they will not. I dare say that the Minister is noting what I am saying—I hope that he is—because it is important to understand the damage that has been done.
Liz Saville Roberts
I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s arguments before and I understand the point he is coming from, but does he appreciate that the Bill would reserve powers out of the Government of Wales Act 1998 that would otherwise see powers over state aid going to Wales? Does he not see the possibility that there could be another point of view?
Sir William Cash
I am always extremely aware of other points of view—I have been subjected to them for the past 35 years in this House, but so far they have not prevailed. I am clear in my mind about the benefits of the United Kingdom as a whole, on all these matters—there are so many aspects that we do not have time to go into today—but state aid is central to the whole question of maintaining our spirit of enterprise. It is central to the degree to which we can provide tax incentives to facilitate and encourage UK jobs for the whole UK, including Scotland. It is central to our ability to encourage competitiveness, based on our own laws, and level up throughout the entire country, including Scotland. This is fundamental stuff.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman discussed the situation in the 1950s and ’60s, and I know that he likes to dwell on that era. I note that he conveniently airbrushed Margaret Thatcher out of the demise of the coal industry in Scotland. For his information, we have trust ports in Scotland, too. Does he get the irony of arguing about another body’s interference in an elected Parliament’s ability to make decisions while he is making this argument? That is exactly what is happening to the Scottish Parliament through the Bill.
Sir William Cash
That is interesting, because the counterpoint to that—the hon. Gentleman would expect me to come back with this—is to ask why on earth the people of Scotland would want to subjugate themselves to the European Union system, which we are escaping from, when it has such deleterious and tragic consequences for so many people and jobs in Scotland, as well as in Wales and England. He argues that Scotland can do this better, but I tell him that the consequences of staying in the European Union would be extremely damaging.
We have made it clear that the laws would continue under the protocol, as we discussed yesterday. I know that from the advice and analysis that we are doing in the European Scrutiny Committee, and the Cabinet Office Minister is coming to see the Committee very soon to discuss all these questions. Given the manner in which the European Union functions—as I have said, behind closed doors and without even a transcript—and with the wholly unelected European Commission making the authorisations, the system is very bad news for Scotland. It will be no substitute for having these things handled in an objective and down-to-earth way by the Minister; I have no doubt that he will ensure that the people of Scotland are looked after properly.
This is a bread-and-butter issue for those who work in our economy. It is about putting food on the table, into the indefinite future, for all voters, whether they are Conservative, Labour, DUP, SNP or others. It is similarly important for those voters’ representatives in this House. If Members vote against the Bill, they will have to explain to every one of their constituents, including those in Labour constituencies—I am not looking at anybody in particular or making a point about that, because we represent the whole country through different political parties—why our economy and voters’ jobs and businesses have continued to be undermined by unfair and discriminatory EU state aid and other uncompetitive lawmaking.
The Bill will ensure, among other things, that the UK escapes unfair discrimination under the EU state aid regime, which I mentioned yesterday in relation to the steel industry. The voters in the red wall know this, as do their parents, including those in coalfield communities. I became vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coalfield communities—this is going back five or 10 years—because I understood, as did many Labour Members from Mansfield and all over the country, how important those communities are. I even got up the other day and spoke in the House about pension arrangements for coalminers. We need to take account of the fact that the state aid rules cause total misery and tragedy, and ultimately the destruction of our coal and steel industries.
Jonathan Edwards
As someone who represents two coalmining valleys, I think the hon. Gentleman might be guilty of some historical revisionism. The French, the Germans and the Spanish also went through a similar transition in coalfield communities, but they did it over a number of decades. It was a decision of the British Government to bring a guillotine over the coal industry and decimate it in one go, and that was a Conservative Government.
Sir William Cash
I voted against my own Government and nearly defeated them on the question of the closure of pits around Stoke-on-Trent. I actually challenged Arthur Scargill on a platform in Hanley and grabbed the microphone from him. It was recorded by BBC and apparently won an award. The issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers are very important, but I do not agree that this is revisionism at all. It is what happened and I objected to it.
Let us consider state aid. I will give the figures: Germany received as much as £4 billion a year in grants and subsidies, while our coal and coalfields in the United Kingdom were languishing. I know that coal is not popular now in quite the way it was, but none the less the principle is there: the state aid policy discriminated in favour of Germany and France. It is part of the deal: the European Coal and Steel Community, and supranationality—that is what it is all about. Our people in those communities were not compensated by grants and regional aid under various EU schemes and handouts, and they have never forgotten it.
Furthermore, the Court of Auditors reports that we debate in this House, although not on the Floor of the House, which we should, have genuinely never been signed off. Almost never has a Court of Auditors report ever been signed off. The money never got to those who really needed it. That was compounded by a wave of scandals—for example, over milk quotas, backhanders and fraud—all of which has been well documented over the years. The list is endless. In any case, our taxpayers—from the whole United Kingdom—paid for those inadequate grants through our own massive contributions to the EU of up to £18 billion a year and rising. If we do not fully disengage, this is what we—the people of Scotland, too—will be suffering from.
The Bill is therefore about the economic future of our future generations. It is about a new competition law administered on our own terms in our own country by our own courts. It will prevent our professional working voters from being trapped indefinitely in an EU economic satellite run by the unelected European Commission and Council of Ministers. We will have no veto. It will be imposed on us and it is an outrage that that should be the case. That is why the notwithstanding clauses, which I played some part in developing, are a matter of vital national interest and sovereignty. Otherwise, we will continue to be subjected to EU laws on terms and conditions imposed on us by them. The bottom line is that, for the vital national interest of this country, that situation cannot be allowed to continue.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) perhaps understands that a little better as we move forward. Yesterday, I got the impression that although he was very concerned about breaking international law, the reality is that there are circumstances—my exchanges with him yesterday are informative on this point—about which he is now very aware, as are other Members who signed that amendment, which as yet I do not think has been completely disposed of. This is about our sovereignty and our ability to maintain political and economic sovereignty and to save jobs, develop them and create enterprise.
This is not a small matter; this is monumental. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to talk about this in terms of independence, but people will not thank him, and they will not thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) or anyone from any other part of the United Kingdom when the truth comes home to roost, which is that the EU will not allow us to compete favourably or at all. Its cardinal principle is to make sure that we cannot compete with it, and that is a reason in itself why we have to stand firm on the whole question of the notwithstanding clauses.
Liz Saville Roberts
Diolch yn fawr, Dame Rosie. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I rise to speak to amendment 9 to clause 54, which I tabled with my Plaid Cymru colleagues and the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). This amendment seeks to rectify the anti-democratic nature of this shabby Bill by giving the devolved legislatures the opportunity to hold a vote on the Bill before its provisions become law. It would also ensure that no additional powers were reserved to Westminster through the Bill unless the devolved legislatures of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland gave their explicit consent.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I have listened to days of this debate and to many constituents, and while I started off feeling quite concerned and nervous, I am more certain today of the need for the Bill than I have been up until now. It would be foolhardy to make no provision if a free trade arrangement is not secured, and I want to speak to parts 1 and 2 of the Bill.
The UK internal market has functioned seamlessly for centuries, and it is the responsibility of all of us to work to ensure this remains the case. The Bill ensures that businesses can continue to trade across our country as they do now. We cannot accept new burdens and barriers in any part of the UK, and I was stunned to hear the SNP talking about the kind of restrictions they wanted to place on their own great nation by not allowing the UK to work for free trade.
I cannot stress enough how much the business community wants leadership, confidence and clarity regarding the environment it will be expected to operate in on 1 January, which is not that far away, so my plea to Government, and the plea from businesses in my constituency, is for them to step up the communications for the millions of businesses across the UK. Market access in goods and services is vital, and businesses deserve to know exactly how this is to be.
I am also reassured regarding the scope of the Bill; I do not share the concerns we have just heard about the power grab. It is clear to me that Brexit achieves the very opposite: rather than Brussels dictating how state aid, for example, should be applied, it is for the UK Government and the devolved authorities to work together to work out how businesses can be supported to grow and flourish, and how communities can be supported do so through good business. I look forward to the Government being able to identify which parts of the UK face inequalities and barriers to success, and to be free to apply support and intervention as part of their levelling up agenda, targeting taxpayers’ money at improving life chances.
I am also reassured that if this Act is needed, and if a breach of international law is needed, Parliament will be required to trigger it. In most constituencies, international law was not a regular topic of conversation prior to the introduction of the internal market Bill. However, that is not the case in west Cornwall and Scilly; it crops up regularly across my patch, and has done for as long as I have been an MP, because it relates to fishing, which it is crucial that we ensure we get right as we go into next year. Breaching international law presents a trip hazard for UK fishing. There is one key element to reassuring our fishing fleets about UK fishing policy, and it played a part in the Brexit referendum result: international law gives the UK control of access to UK waters, and confidence in the rule of law allows us to look UK fishing in the eye.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about international law being talked about among his constituents, but can he assure me that the international law of UNCLOS—the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—will be adhered to, despite his Government’s apparent intention to breach international law around this agreement?
Derek Thomas
What I am clear about, which is why I said at the beginning I was more nervous until we got to this part of the debate, is that there is very little risk that we will breach any international law or even that this Act will be needed. I am confident that we will continue to work for the free trade agreement, and I am confident we can avoid that, and, if and when it comes to it, I am confident that it will be Parliament that triggers these provisions or not.
Returning to our fishermen, they have followed our lead and they are confident that, as a country that abides by the rule of law, international law will be on their side, so we must press ahead, but with great caution; I agree with the comments made on that. People expect their MPs to work in their best interests and the UK interest first and foremost. In my view, the motivation of every colleague who votes in favour of the Bill is to do just that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill.
In part 1, which deals with the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition of goods, the Secretary of State proposes to award himself the power to vary the statutory requirements included in the mutual recognition principle by statutory instrument. The Bill states that he has only to consult with the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than to receive their consent. I put it to the Government that that undermines the ability of the devolved legislatures to set standards for the goods being sold to the citizens in their nations.
Jonathan Edwards
I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Lady so early in her speech, but she hits on a key point. There is a world of difference between consulting and consenting. Any respect agenda must be based on the latter as opposed to the former.
Sarah Olney
I entirely agree. I was going on to say that the Secretary of State also awards himself the power to vary the statutory requirements in the non-discrimination clause, such as on transportation and inspection of goods or regulation of the markets, in the same way. Is it not the case that, should the Secretary of State find that such requirements no longer suited the needs of English producers, he could change them, to the detriment of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish producers, without the express consent of their Governments?
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Member might reflect on the fact that this is a UK Government—a Government for all four nations. As a Welsh Member, may I ask her also to reflect on how the Bill changes the relationship with the devolved Administrations from the way it operated with Brussels, where, of course, the DAs were consulted by the member state rather than consent being reached?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member touches on quite an important point. I do not believe that it is in the scope of the Bill to address this, but of course we have devolved Assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, yet no similar provision exists for just English matters. That presents a constitutional anomaly, which arises in situations such as this. That is why I made the point that where the interests of English producers are reflected, it is only by the Secretary of State, who should be acting for the whole of the UK. It is precisely that principle that the Bill seeks to undermine.
The plans for mutual recognition of qualifications are welcome, especially the exclusions for areas such as law and healthcare, where there is already a great deal of divergence across the four nations, but it is concerning that the exclusions do not extend to education. As was pointed out earlier, there is already substantial divergence, which could disadvantage our children and young people.
The overriding concern is that the Government in London could quietly amend these requirements and exclusions without the consent of the devolved Administrations, or even a further vote in Parliament, to accommodate new trade agreements with international partners. The Trade Bill also completed its passage through this place untroubled by any attempt to impose parliamentary scrutiny requirements on it. That leaves the Government free to negotiate any kind of trade agreement they choose with any international partner and accept whatever conditions that partner wants to impose—access to our markets, reduction of the standards we impose on goods sold in this country, reduced professional standards and oversight, or changes to any one of dozens of other conditions that we have actively chosen to impose for the health and welfare of our citizens.
Back in December, this Government won for themselves the right to implement Brexit in any way they chose. As a second choice to remaining in the European Union, I would have hoped for ambitious plans to manage a just transition away from carbon-emitting industries, with the creation of new green jobs and a highly skilled workforce. I would have hoped for a United Kingdom that looked to be a leader in promoting human rights, international development and the battle against climate change. Was it too much to hope that the promised sovereignty, which was so precious that everything had to be sacrificed to it, would be granted to Parliament to help steer the course of our independent future?
Instead of a Brexit that underpins our Union, supports our businesses and promotes the United Kingdom as a global leader, we have this sordid Bill. It promises a Brexit that diminishes and disempowers our nation and its constituent parts. It shames us on the world stage, presenting us as a country that, far from being a beacon of democracy and probity, hoards power in the hands of unelected advisers and breaks international law when it suits its purpose. It heightens division between our nations instead of binding us together in a unity of purpose that will strengthen us on the global stage.
It has been suggested that this is some clever negotiating tactic in the discussions with the EU on our future trading relationship.
If that is the case, the Government should stop playing games and apply themselves to providing for the very real challenges faced by business as we anticipate the end of the transition agreement at the end of December. What progress has been made in recruiting the additional 50,000 customs agents who will be needed to complete the estimated 220 million extra import and export declarations in 2021? What progress has been made towards negotiating a replacement for the Dublin agreement, which enables us to return migrants to the country where they first claimed asylum? What of provisions for data sharing between the EU and the UK, or the sharing of information between our security services? Our businesses are already operating at a time of heightened uncertainty—which increased as we learned today of new restrictions on activity—and they need urgent action to resolve these issues.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I would like to raise two main points on the clauses that are being discussed today. The first is around how the Bill protects our successful internal market through mutual recognition and non-discrimination. It is crucial to protect that internal market from a short-term race to the bottom and from measures being taken by devolved Administrations or even the UK Government to favour certain parts of the country over others. That is why it is so important that we maintain that internal market.
The second thing I want briefly to talk about is state aid. Without state aid powers coming back to the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, we will not be able to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on levelling up, which are crucial to areas such as mine. He mentioned extensively the coalfield communities and the former steelmaking communities—places that I represent in the now blue wall in the north-east—and it is crucial that we have state aid powers to enable us to deliver on those commitments.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on state aid, and I also thank the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—I did not realise the Tory party was so in favour of state intervention. However, will the hon. Gentleman square this circle for me? The other big driving force of British Government policy at the moment is international trade deals, and the big ambition is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That trade deal with the 11 countries in that part of the world has very strict conditions on state aid, so how does the hon. Gentleman square the circle with his argument this afternoon?
Mr Holden
The hon. Gentleman might not have recognised where the Conservative party has moved to, but I guarantee that a lot of voters across the country did recognise that, especially when they saw us standing up for them at the general election in the broader sense of wanting to bring powers back to the UK from the EU, which has been particularly restrictive. We are looking for international agreements, and there will be debates. For example, we have just seen what has happened with the Japan free trade deal. There are going to be measures around this, and negotiations are going to take place. It is particularly important that, as we look at these things, they are part of a broader picture. However, state aid will be important in helping to level up certain parts of the country. I am sure that debate will go on over the next few years, and it is one we will need to keep an eye on as we see these trade negotiations going through the House in future years.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for trade and prosperity. Does he agree that, in these difficult times—not eased by today’s announcement—what the businesses of Britain need most are confidence and certainty, and that one thing this House can do today by passing the Bill, with only 100 days to go before the new opportunities to trade prosperously with the wider world, is give businesses confidence and certainty about what our trading arrangements will look like, what our internal market will look like and what our legislative affairs will look like going forward?
Mr Holden
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We need only to look at the crucial trading relationship that my constituency and others in the north-east have with Scotland. On the Scottish side, the trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is many times the trading relationship with even the European Union, which as a whole bloc is obviously our largest international trading partner; it is many times that within the UK internal market. For most of the companies in the United Kingdom, it is these internal United Kingdom measures that are so crucial, and that is what the Bill really does deliver.
I would like to speak briefly about amendment 89. We have heard a lot over the last few months, particularly from SNP Members, about how they view a lot of what is happening at the moment as some form of Westminster power grab, but I could not disagree with them more. In fact, their amendment, if it were supported, would almost be a power giveaway. It would not only involve those big powers returning from the EU to Westminster and, in some cases, all the way down to the devolved Administrations; it would give other parts of the United Kingdom an ability to change standards. It would give powers away from the Scottish Parliament and away from the United Kingdom Parliament, in which Scotland is represented, to other devolved Administrations, who could then make up rules for other parts of the United Kingdom that could then be imposed on Scotland without any form of Scottish representation at all.
Carol Monaghan
The hon. Gentleman talks about standards, but he started his speech this afternoon by saying that this was not a race to the bottom. How does he respond to the concerns of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, a professional organisation underpinned by law, which is now looking at having to accept teachers from other parts of the UK who do not reach the professional standards required to teach in Scotland?
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but she does not answer the point that I was making: the amendment that her party is supporting would mean that any part of the UK could impose new restrictions on Scotland or any other devolved Administration. The Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly could pass something and impose it on Scotland without the consent of the Scottish people. In trying to make what is probably a quirky political point with amendment 89, her party is not seeing the larger consequences that could flow from it. Opposition Members need to pay attention to this important point, because the amendment would give power away from the Scottish Parliament to the rest of the devolved Administrations. There is also the potential for more devolved powers, perhaps for the counties and regions of England, which could also be imposed on Scotland without the say of elected Scottish Members. We need to be very careful about this—
Mr Holden
No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady once on this point.
More broadly, it is crucial that as we leave the European Union we give as much confidence as possible to British business, especially at this time of covid-19. There is a lot of uncertainty at the moment in my constituency—and I am sure in the constituencies of other hon. Members—particularly relating to the covid pandemic, and anything we can do to provide assurance on our important ongoing internal market relationships will be crucial. That is why I shall be supporting the Government and opposing the amendments proposed by the Opposition.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Rosie. I reiterate my support for amendment 9, which would very effectively put powers back where they belong with the devolved nations.
I turn to my new clause 10 on environmental standards, an issue that has been raised by several hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I want to start by reminding hon. Members of two Government commitments. The first was in the Business Secretary’s foreword to the UK Internal Market Bill White Paper, which stated that its proposals would
“prevent any part of the UK from blocking products or services from another part while protecting devolved powers to innovate”.
The second was when the Bill was published and the Government website sought to assure us:
“The UK’s existing high standards across areas including environmental standards, workers’ rights, animal welfare and food standards will underpin the functioning of the Internal Market”.
I have tabled new clause 10 because the Bill does not give legislative effect to either of those commitments, and fails to create the proper framework and give the safeguards and assurances needed to ensure that all four nations of the UK will be able to legislate ambitiously, progressively and, indeed, effectively to protect the environment.
As it stands, the Bill allows market access principles to trump the environment, risking, as others have said, a race to the bottom and stagnant, if not actually diminishing, environmental standards. To date, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have been aligned behind a common baseline of minimum EU standards, and that baseline has been kept high in part by the requirement for environmental measures to aim at a high level of protection. EU law has also provided—crucially, in certain circumstances—scope to go beyond the baseline to protect the environment and human health.
Regulatory divergence already exists in the UK, and there have been several examples from the devolved Administrations of innovative policies that deliver legitimate public policy objectives and, specifically, progressive environmental rules and regulations. I am thinking, for example, of the fact that Wales was the first country in the UK to introduce a charge on carrier bags. I have tabled this new clause because I believe the measures set out in the Bill could affect the ability of all Administrations within the UK to achieve their environmental ambitions and, indeed, to keep improving environmental standards. It could, in other words, lead to a race to the bottom in the absence of commonly agreed minimum standards.
Under the current Bill, while the devolved Administrations are not legally prohibited from introducing new requirements for goods and services, under the market access commitment, these new requirements will be disapplied for incoming goods if standards remain lower elsewhere. That risks rendering such measures ineffective in practice, creating a chilling impact on their creation in the first place. The mutual recognition principle means that the lowest standards legislated for by any of the UK Parliaments must automatically be adopted by all, and that will disincentivise individual Governments from improving existing standards and implementing new higher standards.
The Bill sets out no possibility of exception to mutual recognition requirements for environmental purposes. Mutual recognition can be denied only to prevent the spread of pests, disease and unsafe foodstuffs, and even then only under extremely strictly controlled conditions. The broad scope of the mutual recognition and non-discrimination duties and the lack of grounds to justify local requirements will stifle policy innovation in the devolved Administrations, as well as more routine improvements.
My new clause provides for a wider system of derogations, allowing an individual jurisdiction to refuse mutual recognition on the justification of legitimate public policy objectives and, specifically, on the grounds of measures to protect the environment. This is needed to begin more properly to address the need to improve environmental standards to deal with the climate crisis and nature’s stark decline. It is also needed to support and respect the devolution settlements by ensuring that measures taken by the devolved Governments in areas within their competence will not be undermined by this Bill.
It might be helpful to give a few examples of the difference that this new clause makes. First, on the blight of single-use plastic items, the Welsh Government are proposing to introduce a ban on the sale of nine single-use plastic items, while the UK Government are proposing to ban only three. The mutual recognition principle would mean that the Welsh Government would not, in effect, be able properly to regulate the sale of the additional six products if they were manufactured elsewhere in the UK. Producers in England would be able to sell the six products in Wales, irrespective of the higher Welsh environmental standards. As the Welsh Government have stated, a ban that could apply only to Welsh-produced plastics would undermine the policy and render it ineffective.
Secondly, as this Bill stands, the rules governing packaging would also be classified as a product requirement, and would therefore be fully subject to the principle of mutual recognition. Therefore, imported goods would not have to comply with any new devolved requirements. As Professor Dougan from the University of Liverpool has said—others have already quoted him today—the basic effect of the UK internal market
“would be a powerful disincentive for Scotland to exercise a devolved competence to regulate packaging on environmental grounds, since any new rules would end up applying only to domestic goods, not English imports.”
Finally, a third example is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs initiative that, without new clause 10, could be negatively impacted by the provisions of this Bill. DEFRA has plans to phase out sales of house coal and wet wood in England. However, if this Bill comes into force before those bans, they will be less effective, since the sale of materials originating from other parts of the UK would not be banned. For example, pre-packaged domestic coal originating in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland could be sold in England because the ban will be disapplied in relation to its sale. There will be no possibility of an exception or defence of proportionality, because the Bill does not provide for one.
My new clause 10 would address the Bill’s failure to include the exceptions and derogations vital to enabling all four UK nations to put in place sensible and proportionate measures to protect the environment. It deals with the practical consequences of mutual recognition by requiring suppliers to comply with devolved rules where they relate to the pursuit of environmental protection. The condition under paragraph (b)—that any regulation to which this amendment applies must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim—will help to ensure that derogation on the grounds of environmental protection cannot be exploited for other policy or market aims.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As someone who opposed Brexit, I have bought into the fact we have left the EU. I accept exactly where we are. I guess that my frustration, like so many people around this place, is that we find ourselves at this crossroads, at this dangerous juncture, at such a late hour. I think all of us want a Brexit deal that protects our economy and protects jobs, regularises our standards and provides environmental protections, but foremost also secures our businesses, which are so dependent on relations with our nearest neighbours, within Europe.
I want to speak to new clause 11, but I will also address in passing amendment 86. We were told that we had an oven-ready deal. According to the Foreign Secretary, it was going to be a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland. But of course, the Prime Minister was not talking turkey, certainly not in anticipation of Christmas, as we have just heard. This was a deal that the Prime Minister himself cooked up, yet now it is stated that this could break up our country—our Union. This is an historic admission of failure. New clause 11, put forward by my honourable colleagues, seeks to ensure that we get this Brexit deal done. It is a broad new clause that demands that the Government should review and report to Parliament on the workings of the Act, addressing the functioning of the UK internal market Act and the effectiveness of the market access principles that have been promised, as well as agreeing common frameworks with the devolved Administrations.
My concerns lie with the fact that the Bill, to my mind, frustrates a deal. The trade economists we on the International Trade Committee have heard from made it pretty clear that failure to get a deal will cause our manufacturing industry exports to fall by around 20%. For the automotive industry specifically, which I have a clear passion for, should we not have a deal by 31 December, we will, of course, fall to WTO rules, which will see 10% tariffs on all passenger cars, 22% tariffs on vans and trucks—another important part of our export mix—and 3.5% tariffs on components, which of course are intrinsic and critical to our manufacturing. The Government are talking about maybe getting, through our deal with Japan, a special arrangement that will enable any Japanese components that go into our products to actually count as being of UK origin. I would be amazed if the European Union would actually accept that.
Jaguar Land Rover has warned that it could be forced to close plants if the right Brexit deal is not agreed, jeopardising £80 billion of planned investment. Ford has said that no deal would be disastrous and would make it reconsider its investments in the UK. Nissan has said that its operations in Sunderland would struggle to survive the extra tariffs imposed by a no deal. Toyota has said it would be forced to halt car production in the UK, temporarily closing its plant in Derbyshire. BMW has said that it could shift production of the Mini from Cowley to the Netherlands if there is a no-deal Brexit. These are not idle threats; this is the reality faced by many multinational businesses.
I am afraid that the Prime Minister is prepared to play Russian roulette—hardly a surprise, given the nature of his sponsors—with our businesses, our jobs and our prosperity in this country. That has to be our concern. Although there might be talk about the possibility of a US trade deal, we have heard in recent days that the passing of this Bill would jeopardise any UK-US trade deal. It is very unlikely to pass through Congress, such is the strength and purpose of the Irish caucus in Washington.
Let me turn to international law and Britain’s reputation. This is not simply about Brexit. Do we want to be a trustworthy nation—one that stands up for the rule of law? Does the Prime Minister really want to throw that all away by disregarding international treaties, in particular one that he personally negotiated and signed up to? That will undermine our standing in the world.
I am reminded of the incredibly powerful speech yesterday by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who said:
“whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation”.—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 667-668.]
We have heard it from Lord Howard, from Sir John Major, from David Cameron—from so many former Prime Ministers.
It is clear that our Prime Minister is being reckless. Can Members imagine what the co-founder of the modern Conservative party, Robert Peel, would be thinking now—a person who championed law and order? In our Prime Minister, we have a man who is legendary for wrecking restaurants in Oxford. Does he not see that by his behaviour and actions, he is damaging Britain’s reputation—doing a modern-day Ratner? Members may recall Gerald Ratner, the entrepreneur who set up an incredible business empire and then destroyed his entire business with a few ill-chosen words. We risk not just tarnishing our reputation but seriously damaging it. We must be concerned about that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to new clause 11(4) and the need to preserve the Union. It is clear that while we are in danger of destabilising the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we also risk undermining the devolution settlement. With the Bill, the Government are seeking to usurp the process of agreeing common frameworks on key devolved matters such as agriculture and food standards. The Welsh Government have made it clear that this is seen as a power grab, a centralisation of powers and an emasculation of the devolved Government. They have described it as
“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales”.
The voice of the Welsh Government is echoed by the Scottish Government in Holyrood, who say that it is “impossible to recommend” that the Scottish Parliament give its consent to the Bill. It has been condemned by the First Minister and Scottish Labour.
Finally, let me turn to the situation with state aid. For me, this is a red herring. I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has served this House for many decades and championed the cause of leaving the European Union. To my mind, however, what I have witnessed over decades is how intelligently other nations have used state aid to their benefit. They have long provided aid, support, guarantees—call it what you will, even state ownership. I do not believe that this has been to their disadvantage and I do not believe it would be to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland either—I think it would actually be to its great advantage. I heard the comments by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), but as I see it, both Germany and France have stronger steel industries, and they have made the system of state aid work for them. For all those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be opposing the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a gentle reminder that because we are in Committee, it is usually customary to call me “Chair” rather than “Deputy Speaker”. I know that it is difficult to follow, because we said this at the beginning and people are in and out of the Chamber, but that is just a reminder.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Thank you, Dame Rosie. It is my pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).
I wish to briefly speak in support of the Bill, and in particular, on the significance of clause 54 and the importance of rejecting amendments that seek to limit the territorial extent of the Bill. Since the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707, the UK internal market has been a source of unhindered and open trade across the United Kingdom. Beyond the end of the transition period on 1 January 2021, divergence on policy on goods and services in the four constituent parts of the UK raises the threat that this seamless trade would come to an end, increasing costs and burdens for businesses and posing a sad state of affairs for the Union. It is common sense that we need to avoid this scenario.
As chair of the all-party group on Mersey Dee North Wales, I know how important the UK internal market is to businesses throughout the region, where 12 million daily cross-border commutes take place annually. In fact, a 2018 Welsh Government policy briefing noted:
“In the case of the UK internal market the economy in Wales is deeply embedded within the wider UK economy.”
It went on to say:
“Close proximity means natural transport routes and lower transport costs, shared institutional and business contexts, and cultural and historical ties”.
Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill propose a commitment to market access. This will guarantee that UK companies can trade unhindered in every part of the United Kingdom, ensuring the continued prosperity and wellbeing of people across the land. Qioptiq, a manufacturer of optical instruments, which has a base in my constituency, says:
“With the current economic uncertainty driven by the global pandemic, it is important for industry to be able to continue with a consistent approach to trade across all of the UK. Legislative stability and consistency, without additional barriers, are keys to success.”
Wales sells three times more to the rest of the UK than it does to the whole of the rest of the world combined. UK supply chains are also highly integrated. Data shows that almost three times as many intermediate inputs used by businesses in Wales come from other parts of the UK as from every trade market combined, and modelling shows that Wales would suffer a GDP loss five times higher than the UK as a whole from any reduction in internal trade due to unmitigated differences in regulation.
The clauses under consideration today are vital to provide certainty for businesses and ensure that we retain the status quo of no barriers to the movement of goods and services in all parts of the United Kingdom, so that companies can focus on their recovery and plan to invest and create jobs.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I rise to speak in support of amendment 88 and amendments 27, 34 to 36 and 39, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
I make no apologies for seeking throughout our proceedings to defend devolution and the principle that power devolved is power retained. This Bill represents the most substantial transfer of power from Holyrood to Westminster since the reconvening of Scotland’s Parliament in 1999, placing a straitjacket over Scotland’s desires to uphold high environmental standards and high food standards, as well as to protect our economy from being sold out by the Tories in a race to the bottom.
The Bill as currently drafted means overriding the devolution settlement in key areas such as food standards, environmental protection and building control. As a member of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, I am particularly concerned by the warnings of Peter Drummond from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, who said earlier this week that Scotland’s significantly higher building standards on cladding and fire prevention measures were threatened by the overarching desire of the Bill to achieve alignment on the basis of mutual recognition of standards.
Throughout this Bill, the principle of consent to legislate in areas normally devolved under the Sewel convention is notably absent. It is clear that throughout the passage of this Bill, the concerns of the devolved Governments, regardless of their political colours, have been totally ignored. Amendments 27, 34 to 36 and 39 should therefore present no problem for the UK Government if they want to continue to operate on the principle that they should seek a legislative consent motion for those aspects of the Bill that are devolved.
The power grab that the Bill creates on devolution will be cemented by virtue of the Bill’s inclusion within schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998, which means in practice that the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate in devolved areas will be constrained as a result of the passing of this Bill. Any legislation placed within that schedule to the 1998 Act is protected from modification by primary or secondary legislation, even if that legislation is within the Scottish Parliament’s existing devolved responsibilities. It should be noted that the same provision was used during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to place constraints on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to directly legislate in devolved areas of retained EU law.
The UK Government’s sudden interest in the use of schedule 4 to the 1998 Act in the past two years reveals their ultimate intention to use Brexit to re-reserve powers that are currently within devolved competence. Their power surge is proving true to its word—the Bill is fundamentally damaging everything that it comes into contact with.
In the drafting of part 2 and clauses 48 and 49, the UK Government’s inherent assumption is that any regulatory divergence would somehow undermine the functioning of cross-border trade and subsidies. There is no credible evidence to suggest that primary legislation is needed in those areas where there have historically been big differences between the legal framework and therefore the regulatory standards in Scotland and England.
Aileen McHarg, professor of public law and human rights at the University of Durham, hit the nail on the head when she highlighted:
“In all the fury re the UK Internal Market Bill’s impact on the NI Protocol, let’s not forget that it also radically recasts the devo settlements in a way that will, to a much greater extent than EU law, restrict the devolveds’ ability to effectively regulate their own territories”.
Amendment 88 would entirely remove the Bill’s status as a protected enactment under the Scotland Act 1998 when it reaches the statute book. That is a necessary step to stop the Westminster power grab and move the Bill back towards an approach based on agreed common frameworks for trade within the UK that also respects devolution and the desire of devolved Administrations to legislate in accordance with the wishes of their respective electorates.
A quote that is most often attributed to Donald Dewar is that devolution is
“a process, not an event”.
Any hon. Member who wants that process to continue in Scotland’s favour should oppose the sweeping and overreaching approach taken by this Bill, and that is what I intend to do today.
Bim Afolami
I am glad that the Minister is in favour of the Bill as well; that is good news.
In the modern world, trade matters just as much as—if not more than—it ever has. There has been much talk about trade, not just over the days in which we have considered the Bill, but over the past couple of years. I do not want to put us through the last couple of years again, but we spend a lot of time talking about tariffs. Although tariffs are important, the biggest obstacles in modern trade are often non-tariff barriers such as professional standards, standards for goods or different standards relating to services. The whole Bill seeks to address these aspects of trade, particularly through these clauses.
We need to consider not just trade between the United Kingdom and other countries, but trade within the United Kingdom. We all have businesses in our constituencies that trade. I was talking to a business in my constituency this summer about the places with which it is trading. I said, “Are you trading with China or the United States?” and the people from this business said, “With Aberdeen.” It is easy to forget that we need to ensure that our internal market—some people may prefer the term “internal single market”—is as seamless and as free as possible, and that is what this Bill does.
The Bill also ensures the principle of non-discrimination within the United Kingdom internal market. It allows businesses to expand within the UK as well as trading abroad, and helps businesses to access procurement from across the United Kingdom. For example, the Scottish Government may procure goods from a Welsh company, or Hertfordshire County Council may have a procurement contract with a Northern Irish business. Our trade within the United Kingdom is of paramount importance, and this House should not forget how much trade happens within our nation.
It is important to address some of the criticism of the Bill. I have been listening to the debate over the last couple of weeks, and, frankly, I find it rather odd hearing SNP Members criticise the Bill on the basis that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Irish Assembly would not be able to have their own say vis-à-vis certain standards. On some level, one could argue that that is an argument for independence. Obviously that is the SNP’s stated position and they are entitled to have it, but contained in the same breath SNP Members are saying, “But we want the European Union to impose common standards.” We are talking about a European Union that, even under the most generous terms of electoral governance it may devise, would give the Scottish people, the Welsh people or the Northern Irish people—
Bim Afolami
In a second. I would like to make a bit of progress.
The European Union would not give its voters a direct say in the making of such common standards as Members would have in this House. Yet SNP Members would prefer the European Union, which has more than 450 million people in 27 member states, to impose common standards, rather than the United Kingdom Parliament, where SNP Members quite rightly speak for their constituents in this House. I find that a bizarre position.
I do not believe the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is in her place, but earlier she became very exercised—she mentioned it several times—about the idea, the horror, of English teachers being able to teach in Scottish schools. This is not a place to talk about the SNP’s record on education, but it is odd if we cannot have an amity between the four nations and would regard an English teacher as somehow not qualified to teach in Scotland. Do we not want fully qualified English teachers to be able to go to a Scottish school and to say that they want to teach in Scotland? The Bill allows the sort of non-discrimination that that would outlaw.
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman is mischaracterising the attempts by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) to point out that qualification standards in Scotland are higher than those required in English schools. I can tell him right now that free schools, which are so popular with his Government, are allowed to employ teachers without qualified-teacher status. That is not the case in Scotland. What is his answer to that?
Bim Afolami
I was afraid that the hon. Lady would not understand my point fully. Let me make it for her again: the idea that standards for teachers in Scotland are somehow higher than those in England is not correct. The fact is that across all our nations there are certain small differences in the professional qualifications of different people in different professions. This argument—almost—that we are having illustrates the fundamental point, which is that we should have a principle of non-discrimination for goods, services, teachers and all professions across this United Kingdom.
I am having some fun, so let me take on another point in respect of amendment 89. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) made this point very well, and I am sad that he is not in his place because I do like to praise him—he is a very intelligent, smart fellow. The amendment would in effect allow a devolved Assembly or Government from one part of the United Kingdom to impose regulations on the people of Scotland. If I was a member of the SNP and believed that the people of Scotland’s interests were paramount, I would think that quite odd. Again, it illustrates the illogicality of the SNP position.
Fundamentally, SNP Members care about one thing: they do not care about free trade across the United Kingdom or prosperity for businesses; they just care about breaking up the United Kingdom. The reason why the Scottish nationalists dislike this Bill so much—I have been wondering what is driving their animus toward the Bill—is that they know it can help to bind the United Kingdom together. That is why they hate it, that is why I support it and that is why the Minister and the Government are putting it forward.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if SNP Members actually wanted to break up the Union and the Bill was as terrible as they claim, they would vote with us to put through such a terrible Bill? The fact that they oppose the Bill shows that it is a good Bill that will bind us together, showing once again the illogicality of their arguments.
Bim Afolami
As always, I agree with my hon. Friend.
The Bill has been put forward and we are in the position we are in. The Prime Minister made his statement earlier today and will make a statement to the country this evening. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and we all know that.
We also know that the economic consequences of that pandemic are only starting to show. We must do everything we can, regardless of party politics, regardless of where we sit on various issues on the constitution or anything else, to help jobs. It is about jobs, jobs, jobs—people’s livelihoods. This Bill can underpin and help strengthen that aim.
Sixty per cent of Scottish exports—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—go to the rest of the United Kingdom, and yet the SNP says that it wants more, not fewer, barriers to that trade. The biggest long-term challenge of this Parliament, after the terrible health consequences of the pandemic, is, I believe, the economic damage that ensues. The Bill helps not just the United Kingdom come together, but any United Kingdom Government support businesses, jobs, people and communities across these nations—that is something to be commended, strengthened, and supported—alongside increasing by more than 100 the powers going to devolved Assemblies and Governments. I believe that that will strengthen the Union, strengthen our internal single market, and strengthen the economy of this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I have spoken in a number of debates during the passage of this internal market Bill. For me and my colleagues, the Bill is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together and we wish, through our contributions, to try to explain where we stand on these issues. We do not want to ruffle feathers in a way that annoys people.
The briefing for this debate outlines the aim of the Bill, which is well worth repeating for those who perhaps do not understand the point that we are trying to make. There are those who are fixated on what could be said about us. Well, I am fixated, and my party is fixated, on this definition. The briefing says:
“The Bill sets out two principles that will govern access to the UK market for goods and services. The principles aim to allow people and businesses to trade across the UK without having to face different barriers in its different nations.”
We are convinced that the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to the same opportunities as those in England, Scotland and Wales. The briefing says:
“The first principle means that if a good or service can be legally sold in one part of the UK (as it meets the relevant regulations) then it can be sold in any part of the UK.”
That is exactly what we think and this is the principle of mutual recognition. The briefing goes on to say:
“The second principle prevents parts of the UK treating goods coming in from other parts of the UK less favourably than local goods. This is the principle of non-discrimination.”
We have recorded our amendments, but we will not be pressing them today. They are on the amendment paper, so if Members get a chance, they can take a look at them and get a fair idea of where we stand on this matter.
I know that I must sound like a stuck record, but the fact is that, for the sake of my constituents, for the sake of my local businesses and for the sake of my local industries, I have to say again that the principle of non-discrimination must apply to Northern Ireland as an intricate part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is what this Bill seeks to do. That is why the DUP has tabled various amendments, which we will not be pressing today. They set out the statement of our position and it is important that we have that recorded in this debate. We seek to underline the fact that we are, and must remain, on an equal footing with every other nation—Scotland, Wales and all of England—and must remain on an equal footing across this wonderful Union that we all take so much for granted.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the point that my hon. Friend is making about unfettered access across all four nations of the UK, that is a fundamental prerequisite that we need to see in this Bill, however it is amended. Hopefully that is an objective that everybody in the Committee should be committed to.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly what I am saying and exactly the point that we are trying to put forward today. It is about east-west trade and west-east trade. It is about how this affects our agrifood sectors. It is about how our businesses can continue to operate and not be restrained in any way.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) referred to the fishing sector, which is very important for me in my constituency. At one time, Portavogie had 120 boats in its harbour, but owing to EU regulations and all the bureaucracy that came in, that number is now down to approximately 60. We hope that through this our fishing sector can grow, and we are quite convinced that that will happen.
Our amendment, which is not for debate today, reflects the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) made. It states:
“In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.”
It also requires that we must
“have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.”
That is the very point that he refers to and that our party has consistently uttered in this Chamber—that we want to have the same rights as everyone else.
I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that tells me that Northern Ireland does not deserve the same recognition. I think we all know that, and hopefully it will be delivered whenever this Bill is finally concluded. I have yet to see one single statement that points me to the holy grail of the Belfast agreement that is being waved about as a reason we cannot have our place in the United Kingdom. There is no clause in the Belfast agreement that precludes us from maintaining our place in the UK outside of Europe. We believe that our position on this Bill today will be one that all of us, on all sides of political opinion, can support.
Again, we hark back to the legal opinion. It is important in this debate to have a legal opinion that is balanced. Martin Howe QC has unequivocally stated that
“there are good arguments that the government’s clauses will not breach international law. First, there is a general principle of international law that treaty powers should be exercised in good faith, and an EU blockage of reasonable ‘goods at risk’”
between GB and Northern Ireland
“could be classed as a bad faith exercise of treaty powers…Secondly…the alteration of the constitutional status of NI (which across the board tariffs on GB to NI exports would entail) would breach the core principle of the Good Friday Agreement...International law does not justify a later treaty to which these community representatives are not parties being used to over-ride the rights they enjoy under the earlier treaty”.
That legal opinion is very pertinent to this debate and to the importance of where we stand. It also states that
“section 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act preserves Parliamentary sovereignty and makes it quite clear that Parliament has the right to pass the clauses which the government is proposing and thereby override these errant clauses in the Protocol.”
That is why I can support the Government in what they put forward and reject the Opposition arguments, while ever understanding that people have differences of opinion. We can agree to differ on these things while feeling very strongly on the stance that we have. That highlights the importance of this debate in terms of the legal and moral necessity of our opinion as stated in our amendments, which we are not pressing.
For me, this is all about free trade. It is all about having the same opportunity. It is about businesses in Strangford and across the whole of Northern Ireland being able to trade east-west and west-east. It is about my fishermen being able to land their fish in Portavogie harbour and not be subject to a tariff that would make it nonsensical to do so. It is about my fishing sector growing. It is about my agrifood sector, which employs some 2,500 people, growing. I believe that that could happen through this Bill.
Craig Williams
On day four in Committee, it is tempting to regurgitate all the points that have been made previously, but I can assure Members that I will resist that. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I agree with much of what he said about our precious Union. It was also a pleasure to hear from my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) about the non-tariff barriers. Those two key points—non-tariff barriers to trade and market access for our Union—are why I was so exercised that I put myself forward to speak in this debate.
I want to briefly talk about market access. We have heard some Members getting exercised about the creation of this market access framework, but much of what is in the Bill replicates the EU market as it was. Much of the political debate around the Bill thus far has been a regurgitation of the former Brexit argument—it is just the same old politics in a different guise.
A third of my constituents in Montgomeryshire travel across the English-Welsh border every day, whether that is for education, jobs, skills or goods. It is entirely porous. It is essential for my constituency—I task the entire Welsh nation with this—that we get market access right, with no distortions and no non-tariff barriers internally or externally, for the rest of the world. It is critical that this is done at a UK level.
I want to touch on amendment 9 and the perceived attack on devolution. This is one of the single biggest transfers of powers to the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament —70 powers. I will happily take an intervention from anyone who can name a single power that the Welsh Parliament will not be able to exercise because of this Bill. Indeed, the Counsel General of the Welsh Government went as far as to say that
“this doesn’t specifically prevent the Senedd from exercising its powers”.
All the noises to date in this Chamber and in the press are a lot of politics.
Deidre Brock
Of course, it is not a single power. The effect would be felt across many of the devolved powers. If the hon. Gentleman would care to have a look at page 12 of the explanatory notes, he will see that it is explained quite clearly in the paragraph entitled “Constitutional embedding and devolved competence”:
“the Bill’s provisions create a new limit on the effect of legislation made in exercise of devolved legislative or executive competence.”
Craig Williams
No more than the market access operated under the EU market. The devil is always in the detail, and the hon. Lady can name no specific power—these are just broad political statements again and again. My constituents expect better. This Bill is essential for jobs, jobs, jobs. That, more than ever, is what my constituents expect me to support.
Deidre Brock
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there already exist wide regulatory differences between the four nations of the UK? When I sat on the Committees considering both iterations of the Agriculture Bill, we heard from the National Farmers Unions, and they always wanted any changes to regulations or to approaches in the different nations to be agreed, not imposed, as is happening with this Bill.
Craig Williams
My constituency has a huge concentration of high mountain and hilltop sheep farming. This Bill affects none of that. It changes no specific powers. The point that the hon. Lady just made means absolutely nothing in detail—nothing to jobs in my constituency, nothing to the constitutional changes and nothing to the devolved Administrations. All this does is continue what we had under the European Union.
Claire Hanna
We come at this a different way. Can the hon. Gentleman name a single power that will not potentially be affected? Can he name a single devolved power that is ring-fenced? On Wednesday evening I asked Ministers for assurances on a range of different potential interventions, but I did not receive any, so I will ask again. Can the hon. Gentleman name a single power that this Bill would not allow the Government to scoop in from the opposite direction?
Craig Williams
That is a wonderful intervention. Such is the power of the hon. Lady’s argument that she asks me to help her name a power in reverse. I have asked Opposition Members to name one specific power, but it has not been forthcoming. This is a complete politicisation of what is an essential Bill.
In conclusion—I am conscious of my promise to keep my contribution short—the Bill clearly does not affect the powers of the DAs. It clearly reinforces the importance of the market to the United Kingdom and to my Welsh constituency, and it clearly will protect the jobs that I have been sent here to protect. I commend the Bill and thank the Minister for promoting it.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will address you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh, as is customary, but I hope through you to get a message to the people of Scotland, because it is our duty to warn those who are not yet aware of it that this Government down here in London are planning to take powers away from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and, ultimately, the people of Scotland.
They say that they have no such plans. Nobody in my party believes that, but let us say that they are correct. I am going to give a couple of examples of what we are so alarmed about, and I would be very happy for any Government Member to stand up when I have done so and tell me that I am wrong and have misunderstood. But they should be warned: if they plan to do that, they had better be able to point to the actual legislation that guarantees that our fears are unfounded. If no Government Member can do that, the people of Scotland will know. Whether this Government like it or not, an independence referendum is on its way to Scotland, and our people are watching very closely.
Let me start with the first example. We in Scotland, as Members will have heard many times today, are very proud of our minimum price controls on alcohol. It is a policy that I, as a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, and others fought tooth and nail to introduce many years ago, though unsuccessfully at the time. In fact, I remember making my speech in the Scottish Parliament, holding aloft a 2-litre bottle of what was at the time a very cheap top-strength cider, to illustrate a point. As an aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) was my researcher at the time, and his job was to buy it and empty it down the sink so that I did not take alcohol into the Chamber.
We are very proud of minimum pricing, because in two short years we have already seen a decrease in harmful drinking in Scotland. But what if we had not passed that legislation already, and what if the democratically elected Scottish Parliament wanted to do so next year, after this Bill has been enacted? It would not matter how many bottles of cheap liquor we held up. It would not matter how many stories we shared of the untold damage done to individuals and their families because of the easy and cheap access to very high-strength alcohol. It would not matter if every single Member of the Scottish Parliament—Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament—voted yes to minimum pricing next year. With this Bill, the UK Government could drive a bulldozer through it and there would be nothing we could do while we remained a part of this Union.
As we heard earlier, Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University has identified that Scotland’s minimum price controls could be characterised as a form of product requirement. That would mean that the principle of mutual recognition in this Bill would apply, and once that obligation applies there is virtually no scope for Scotland to justify applying new rules to imports from England.
Members might ask, “Why does that matter now? Scotland did pass minimum pricing. This legislation applies to new rules, and minimum pricing is not new.” But it does matter, because what happens when we in Scotland come to review minimum pricing? And what if, in that review, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament were to vote for tighter legislation? What if it were to step it up because it works? None of the new rules would apply to alcohol imported from elsewhere in the UK, so cheap high-strength alcohol from England, Wales and Northern Ireland could flood the market in Scotland and a bulldozer would again be driven through all of our good work.
Alexander Stafford
I am listening very carefully to the language the hon. Lady is using. There are lots of coulds and woulds, but no actual evidence. It is always “could” and supposition. Is she admitting that the Scottish Government do not have the power or the willpower? Concrete facts would be great.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman is in effect saying that we have to just trust that the UK Government will not do that. I will tell him what I do trust: EU laws. In this scenario, if we were still subject to EU laws the principle of proportionality would apply and that would protect those public health decisions.
Deidre Brock
Further to that point, does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that, if the Government are so carefully minded to protect the different regulations of the nations of the UK, there is no mechanism in the Bill for negotiating or agreeing minimum standards?
Anne McLaughlin
I do indeed find that extraordinary, but perhaps they will have a change of heart if what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) says—that the “could” and “should” and “would” is not going to happen—is correct. But we know that is not going to happen.
Anne McLaughlin
No, I need to get on.
The Government say that the Bill creates an internal market based on the principles of the EU single market, but there is a considerable gap between the principles enshrined in EU law and those proposed in the Bill, as I have just demonstrated. Perhaps the Government think it is in Scotland’s best interest for them to take away those controls, because they know best. I, personally, do not expect to be able to change that centuries-old colonial attitude, but it might be worth remembering that there are policies started in Scotland that have subsequently been adopted by the rest of the UK.
Anne McLaughlin
I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a minute.
Banning smoking in public places is one such policy and plastic bag charges is another. Perhaps sometimes Scotland does know best and perhaps at other times other countries know best. This proposed legislation, however, only recognises one legislature that apparently knows, and that is the UK Government.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman does not have to keep doing that. I said I will let him in, so I will let him in.
Craig Williams
I thank the hon. Lady. May I just touch on alcohol pricing? Of course, that would not change much. At the moment, if alcohol is dispatched from England, Wales or Northern Ireland, minimum pricing does not apply in Scotland, so what would the Bill actually change on alcohol pricing? It does not apply at the moment if dispatched from other parts of the UK to Scotland.
Anne McLaughlin
I think what the hon. Gentleman is doing is making an argument for independence. If he is saying that the only way we can control this is by Scotland becoming independent, well I will be looking forward to that in the not-too-distant future.
I want to come on to my second scenario, which is procurement. There are many differences between procurement rules in the UK and in Scotland. I will give the House some examples. Scotland excludes companies that have breached blacklisting regulations. That is a good thing, but the UK does not agree. In Scotland, public bodies are forbidden from awarding contracts solely on the basis of cost alone; not so in the rest of the UK. Scottish rules put an explicit requirement on public bodies to include conditions of contract which ensure the contractor complies with environmental, social and employment law in the performance of that contract—also a good thing, but also something where UK rules do not apply. Yet we could be compelled to ditch our rules in favour of the weaker procurement system.
Is there anything in the Bill to prevent this scenario? A company with a dodgy track record on blacklisting eyes up a juicy contract from a public body in Scotland. Could the Bill enable the dodgy company to argue that Scotland’s different rules be considered disruptive, and, in arguing thus, it becomes eligible to apply for the contract? There is nothing to stop that happening. Yet again, the UK Government are asking us to permit them to bulldoze their way through carefully crafted responsible legislation. And yes, I am aware of the exclusions, but I am also aware of the powers of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to alter those exclusions. And yes, I also know that this relates to goods rather than services, but after this week, when the UK Government said they would break international law, we cannot take a single assurance of theirs seriously. Still they cannot point to the legislation that guarantees that what I just described could not possibly happen.
In fact, clauses 3, 7, 6, 5 and 10 give considerable latitude to the Secretary of State to amend the scope of the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles, by using affirmative resolution procedure. This is a sweeping power that gives very limited room for parliamentary scrutiny. The clause pays lip service to consulting with the devolved Administrations, but contains little detail on what happens if they do not consent. The dictionary definition of the word consultation is
“the process of discussing something with someone in order to get their advice or opinion about it”.
What is the point if that opinion is simply disregarded? The Government always deny that that would be the case. They say, “That will never happen. You’re making it up,” but I am afraid it happens all the time.
My very good, honest and honourable friend Michael Russell MSP, who is the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary, talks of the disrespect and even hostility coming from the current UK Government towards the devolved nations, and we hear it all the time. He says that there is “no trust” between the UK and Scottish Governments. That is a ridiculous state of affairs. The UK Government can hardly claim that they are behaving respectfully when there are no safeguarding provisions in this Bill to respect the consent of the devolved Administrations by protecting the Sewel convention.
In the general election campaign, the Prime Minister drove a bulldozer with “Get Brexit done” emblazoned on it through a polystyrene wall. Now he and his colleagues are doing the same thing to the devolution settlement. We know exactly what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about taking back control. He meant that the UK Government should take back control of Scotland.
You know how sometimes a song will keep popping into your head, Ms McDonagh? Whenever I hear this Government talk about Scotland these days, the old Who song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” pops up, and there is nothing I can do to get rid of it. I will not subject you to my singing, but I will share some of the lyrics:
“I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution”—
I will miss out the bit about picking up my guitar—
“Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again”.
“Lead, don’t leave”, we were told in 2014. I do not blame those who trusted the UK Government, but they will not be fooled again.
I want to respond to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), although he has gone now. To win the next independence referendum, one side has to convince the people in Scotland who embraced devolution but voted no last time. Either the Unionists convince them to vote no again, or we convince them to vote yes. If the UK Government keep on with this level of respect, keep driving that bulldozer through everything we in Scotland hold dear and pass this legislation, they will be doing our jobs for us. Perhaps in time, when I look back from our newly independent country where people and the environment come before profit, my anger will, ironically, turn to gratitude.
Claire Hanna
I rise to support amendments 81 to 85, which are in my name. I will also pick up on a couple of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who performed some logical somersaults in becoming the defender of free trade. I have to remind Members that it is this Government’s decisions that are erecting barriers, because we were already part of the largest, most stable and most successful free trading body in the world. I suppose we are the ones who are attempting to deal with the complications of those barriers.
I am not sure if it was just rhetoric, or if the hon. Gentleman genuinely does not understand why the regulations that we all shared while we were in the EU are not perceived to be such an imposition. That is the case precisely because they have raised standards in things such as environmental protection, food standards, the safety of products and toys, and workers’ rights. We see them as a guarantor, an enforcer and a raiser of standards. Unfortunately, we see the Government as no such thing, and in the first year of their term they have resisted and rejected numerous attempts to put into legislation protections for food and environmental standards. This Bill makes absolutely no mention, let alone guarantee, of consultation.
I do not like to keep refighting the last war, but the fact is that when the UK was in the EU, 95% of the regulations that the Government want to change—we never know which ones they want to change—were agreed by consensus. The UK had to oppose only 2% of them. Such consensus-based decision making is not currently enjoyed in the United Kingdom.
Our amendments 81 to 85, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), are designed to address a specific issue about frontier workers, and I will take a wee minute to explain what that is. The border on the island of Ireland is soft and invisible, as Members know, and it runs for hundreds of kilometres. It goes through villages and townlands, and even through homes, churches and farms, so a lot of people live a very cross-border existence. Over the last few years we have tried to soften out some of the bumps that will come up, and that is what we are trying to do with this Bill. One of them is about frontier workers. Between 23,000 and 30,000 people routinely cross the border for their job; I am talking not about people going for social reasons or going up and down, but people whose daily commute crosses the border. That is very common, and until now people have not had to think about decisions in their personal or working life that might involve crossing a continental barrier, but now they do, and we are trying to address this.
Alexander Stafford
We are talking about songs today, and I appreciate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) quoting The Who; lest we forget, the famous Roger Daltrey is an ardent Brexiter and has made it perfectly clear that he supports Brexit, so I will take his words any day.
I welcome the opportunity to speak again on the Bill in Committee—I also spoke last week and on Second Reading—because it is of fundamental importance to us as a country. It is not a political Bill; it is not about being for or against independence or for or against taking powers. It is a Bill about jobs and economic prosperity and ensuring that when we leave the EU fully at the end of this year we can trade as one big bloc. I believe that is why the SNP is against the Bill: because it is a good Bill that binds the country together. There may be some tweaking around the edges, but, fundamentally, this Bill will increase prosperity in the UK, and I think it will convince more people in Scotland that the Union is a good thing and is here to stay.
Moving on, however, this Bill will ensure that businesses can continue to trade across our country, as they do now, avoiding new burdens and barriers. The amendments that SNP Members and others are putting forward will increase those barriers and burdens on business. If there is anything we have learned from this crisis, it is that we need to support business. The only way we can pay for the great schemes the Government have introduced—the furlough scheme, the bounce back loans—is by having businesses thriving.
We want businesses to thrive and this Bill allows businesses to thrive, but I fear the SNP amendments would not. They would put up a barrier between England and Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland, and that would be detrimental for the people of Scotland as well. I think those amendments are very crass, dare I say it, because they will actually increase hardship for the people of Scotland. We want to make things easier for their everyday lives, not harder for political gain.
We have talked about powers being given, and this Bill clearly guarantees more powers for the devolved bodies, with powers increasing in at least 70 policy areas. This is a good Bill. If people believe in subsidiarity and in devolution, this Bill is good because it gives more powers to the people. It is taking them off the European Union, yes, but giving them back to the devolved nations, and that is a good thing.
Furthermore, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland disproportionately benefit from market access, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy risk assessment calculating that internal barriers to trade would impact on Scotland and Wales four or five times worse than on the rest of the UK.
Amendments 34 and 35, from the nationalists, seek to tie the hands of the UK Government. We have seen time and again in this House that SNP Members want to tie our hands and not allow free trade to flow and free conversations between our nations, which is worrying. The nationalists want to amend the provisions of the Bill so that the Government must gain the agreement of the aforementioned Administrations, in an attempt to paint Westminster as overruling the will of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people. These amendments are actually trying to paint us as the baddies that we are not. We are one family—Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, English. We are the same people, and we are cut from the same cloth.
Alexander Stafford
Of course, on family—I will always give way to a member of my family.
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about this family of nations and how we are all going to come to some sort of agreement, but can he answer the question about there being no internal mechanism within the Bill whereby minimum requirements or an agreed harmonisation of standards could take place?
Alexander Stafford
I think we discussed this last Tuesday in relation to the Competition and Markets Authority and markets, which are how we come together, but I want to touch on the point about that minimum of low standards. Why do we have to legislate for everything? Why do we have to legislate for every could, should and would? SNP Members keep trying to portray the worst-case examples, saying, “Oh, you know, the asteroid might hit us. Why does this Bill not talk about the asteroid and how we could deal with it?” We cannot think about all these coulds and shoulds; we have to deal with what is in front of us. We have to work together, and this Bill allows us to work together to overcome any issues, and to come together.
Deidre Brock
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this is based on bitter experience of this place? I would point him to our experience of the Scotland Act 2016. Over 100 amendments and new clauses to that Bill were tabled, and not a single one of them was accepted. Where was Scotland’s voice then?
Alexander Stafford
Once again, this comes back to the difference between our parties. I believe in one country—one United Kingdom. The SNP and the Scotland did have a say. The people of Scotland had a say when they elected the Government in 2019. They have their voice in this Parliament: under the Acts of Union, they have this voice and they can talk contribute through this voice. To balkanise our country into these small states is just wrong.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I banged my head on the desk when I was upstairs watching this on television. The separatists on the opposite side of the House seem to forget and never talk about the fact that we have a £1.5 billion city and region growth deal, on which the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government came together and worked together to bring prosperity to the people of Scotland. Why do they not celebrate success like that, rather than talking about breaking up the United Kingdom?
Alexander Stafford
I could not agree more, but let us be honest, SNP Members do not want to talk about success; they want to talk about breaking up the country, and about how bad it is, because they are unashamedly nationalist. That is their prerogative—they have been elected on a nationalistic ticket—and they will do anything to push this false narrative, but my hon. Friend is completely correct about the benefits. However, I do want to make some progress now.
Turning to amendments 38 and 88, it is critical that the UK Government insert the Bill as a protected enactment in respect of the devolution Acts. The Bill applies to the whole of the UK. If devolved legislatures were able to amend it, it would rupture the internal market and cause chaos for businesses and consumers. Again, I emphasise that this Bill is about businesses and consumers. We want to give them stability after we leave the European Union; we want to ensure that businesses flourish, not to try to break things up and create uncertainty for business. That is incredibly important.
Labour’s amendment 86 looks to undermine the very purpose of the Bill by expanding the definition of a “legitimate aim” to permit discrimination against incoming goods from one part of the UK to another on grounds of environmental, social and labour standards. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that our country is a world leader in those areas already, and nothing will alter that fact. Accordingly, it is important that we permit internal discrimination against goods only on the most restricted and limited basis, such as to prevent threats to life. Expanding the list of legitimate aims threatens to frustrate the purpose of the Bill—the market—and to go on to fragment and balkanise our internal market. We must keep our single market as one. Therefore, I cannot see why any Member would support Labour amendment 86.
The SNP and the Alliance party have collaborated to produce new clause 5, which seeks to ensure that regulations under part 1 do not result in lower food or environmental standards applying in any part of the UK than those that already apply in the EU. It is abundantly clear that those parties have not accepted the vote of the British people in 2016, our subsequent withdrawal from the EU this past January, and now our exit from the transition period at the end of the year.
Anne McLaughlin
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland did not vote to leave the EU? Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and we voted quite decisively. He seems not to be able to acknowledge that.
Alexander Stafford
I hate to rehash the arguments, but the United Kingdom did vote to leave the European Union. I am sure that Mrs Miggins at 34 Acacia Avenue in my constituency did not vote to leave the European Union either, but we are still part of the same family and we are leaving. We cannot balkanise our country. We cannot split up this family. That is the fundamental difference between Government Members and Opposition Members. We see this as a family—a family of nations; a family of people that we love. We want to keep us together, and we will not parcel off our great country. I will not be ashamed of promoting what this country voted for.
I turn to Government new clause 12, which enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance relating to part 1 of the Bill explaining how the UK internal market principles operate, in order to support traders, regulatory authorities and the public. That guidance will help us all to understand and benefit from the Bill, which will increase the internal market. Again, I emphasise that this Bill is about the market, not politics. It is not an independence Bill or a Brexit Bill; it is a business Bill—a Bill to get businesses going and to recover our economy.
The House must pass this Bill, which protects our domestic markets, rejects separatism and division, eliminates chaos and confusion, ensures transparency and impartiality, and strengthens our world-beating standards. I believe that in doing that, the Bill, with the Government amendments, will create a better business environment for all.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not go down exactly the same route as some of the conversations we have had recently. I had a good deal to say yesterday on the previous part of the Bill, and I will not repeat that, because I see my good friend the Minister in his place, no doubt ready to ensure that amendment 66 is moved at the end of the day. He knows—as do you, Ms McDonagh—that since that is the case, my amendment 4 will not need to be moved. Having made sure that he will remember to move amendment 66, I can now move on to the stand part debate.
I am a little prejudiced here; a name like Robert James MacGillivray Neill is probably indicative that my heritage comes from various parts of the United Kingdom, and I am very proud of my Scots background. I might add that the weekend after the European Union referendum, in which everybody knows I campaigned vigorously to remain in the EU, I happened to come across my call certificate to the Irish Bar via King’s Inns in Dublin. Who knows, it might come in handy one day, but it reminded me that there are huge and deep-rooted linkages between the countries of the United Kingdom. We can talk about what are the right governance arrangements between them, but there are personal interdependencies and economic interdependencies that benefit us all. I hope that later this evening we are going to be able to deal with a number of those concerns. No doubt there is more to discuss, but, having banked that progress, I want to say that the rest of the Bill is desirable.
That is why the thrust of the Bill is desirable and, as I said yesterday, I have no trouble supporting it all, apart from my concerns about part 5.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sure the hon. Lady would be disappointed if she did not get every speaker to give way to her at some point, so I will add myself to her set.
Anne McLaughlin
If the hon. Gentleman is perfectly happy for our separate legal systems to mean that someone has to be qualified in the given jurisdiction, is he not uncomfortable with the idea that teachers who learn to teach, or who do not get a teaching qualification, in one country can move to another country and teach there? If he is perfectly happy with that, may I talk about—and will he go to the Home Secretary on this—all the teachers I know who have come to this country from other countries across the world, are not allowed to transfer their qualifications and are therefore not allowed to work? If he is happy to provide support on that, I will perhaps think about what he has to say.
Sir Robert Neill
The first point is that there have to be professional qualifications in order to recognise the people qualified. The Bill does not seem to cause any difficulty about that. I was also making the point that the carve-out on legal qualifications accepts that there are legitimate areas of difference, but there are many other areas where it is entirely legitimate for us to try to work together as a single UK market. I would have therefore thought that the Bill was balanced and proportionate in that regard. I cited services and the importance of the financial services sector, both north and south of the border, as a key example of that. I hope that after the transition period we will also continue our good links with the financial services sector in Dublin, where a number of English legal and professional firms have bases because of those links. The Bill is not malign in any of those regards.
Although the Bill does not and need not cover this, I hope as we go forward that we will see what can be done to help other parts of the broader British family that would desire access to our new internal market—for example, the Crown dependencies, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Many of their financial sectors— their trust arrangements and their banking fund arrangements—are importantly and closely linked to the City of London and the UK. The Justice Committee has oversight of the Ministry of Justice’s work on the relationships with the Crown dependencies, and I think there is a great desire to see how we can strengthen the access between them and the UK. The aspiration for the Crown dependencies to have free and unfettered access to the UK market is something we should look to explore with them on a reciprocal basis.
That particularly and specifically applies to our British territory of Gibraltar—as you know, Ms McDonagh, I have the honour to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. It is a well expressed intention of the Gibraltar Government, supported by all parties in Gibraltar’s Parliament, to have access to, in effect, a free trade area with the United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will take that back to his colleagues in the Government, because it ought to be a no-brainer as we go forward. It causes the United Kingdom no difficulty, and it would be of considerable reassurance to the people of Gibraltar, who despite having voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, none the less trumped even that and asserted their membership of the British family and the desire to remain with the United Kingdom and not to be coerced, sometimes, by their neighbours. Supporting them by making sure they have full access to the internal market ought to be a high priority, both practically and morally, for the United Kingdom Government.
Finally, there is one area that we can perhaps simplify. I am not generally in favour of simplifying or lowering food standards, and I am certainly not in favour of lowering environmental or food standards as we leave the EU or in any future free trade deal, but there is one area, ironically, where leaving the EU may give us something we can turn to our advantage, and that relates to public procurement and, in particular, local authority procurement.
As a number of hon. Members know, I served in local government for many years before I came into this House, and I was local government Minister for the first half of the coalition. One of the genuine complaints I had from councils of all political complexions was about the complexity of going through the OJEU—Official Journal of the European Union—process, where contracts over a fairly basic level had to be advertised through a pretty bureaucratic process. That had the no doubt laudable objective of ensuring that firms across the single market could access those contracts, although, in practice, doing a contract in Bromley, Merton or wherever was not likely to be attractive to a small-sized firm of builders in Poland or the Czech Republic.
Sir Robert Neill
I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend note, as I do, that the OJEU process in the United Kingdom resulted in less than 1% of procurement exercises yielding a bid from outside the United Kingdom?
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend, whose experience in local government is huge and much more recent than mine, is absolutely right. That is the irony—what was a theoretical process none the less caused considerable delay and cost for local authorities seeking to carry out a range of capital works. I hope the Government will say, “Let’s seize the advantage and simplify the public procurement process.”
For a raft of reasons that have been well rehearsed and that I need not repeat, local authorities are hard pressed for cash, and we could certainly make their lives easier by enabling them to save money in the way they do their procurement. We can make it easier for them to adopt a policy of sourcing contractors locally, as they already try to do, so that they can be drivers of support for businesses in their area, without needing to parcel up contracts artificially, as was historically the case to avoid the need to go through the OJEU process. That is one area where I hope the Minister, whose own experience in local government is considerable, will talk urgently and swiftly to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can sit down with the local government sector and get rapid reform of local government procurement rules.
So without more ado, I commend the Bill, now that the little obstacle that might potentially have been in its way has, I hope, been resolved. We can now get on with the serious business of making the best of what is, to be frank, a bad job. This is not where I wanted to be, but it is in the interests of the country that we have a proper working set of rules to enhance the internal market in the United Kingdom.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team, and to put on the record my opposition to the Bill which, as has been pointed out by many, risks undermining devolution by driving a wedge between our Government and the devolved Administrations and infringing on the devolution settlement. The Trades Union Congress is particularly concerned that, unless specifically exempted, restrictions may be placed on the ability of devolved authorities to adopt new or revised regulations to support progressive public policy objectives, which may have a direct or indirect discriminatory impact.
Fundamentally, this legislation shamefully undermines the basis of the Good Friday agreement, a solemnly agreed international treaty that laid the basis for peace in Ireland. Ministers should not need reminding that the withdrawal agreement is part of a binding international treaty, and that breaching a treaty breaches international law. However, we should not be surprised, because the Conservative party has repeatedly shown contempt for international law and collaboration. There are now real problems with Britain’s approach to international law, particularly with regard to the protection of human rights in the UK.
In many areas, particularly in the spheres of immigration control, national security, counter-terrorism, freedom of association and speech and the treatment of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, UK law has frequently been the subject of criticism from experts such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Council of Europe. Recently, we also learned that the UK is to resume arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns that they could be used against civilians in Yemen, in complete violation of international humanitarian law. Today, the Government are increasing the healthcare charge for migrants, widely thought to impinge on fundamental human rights. It is therefore clear from the Bill and many contributions from Government Members that there is little or no respect for democracy, devolution or international diplomacy on the Government Benches.
My contribution is brief, but I conclude by saying that, while some of the Government’s amendments aim to correct the Government’s approach, they do little fundamentally to resolve the vast array of problems with the Bill as a whole.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I will focus my remarks—like many, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), whom it is a pleasure to follow—on the key clauses and amendments, most of which stem, so far as I can see, which is why I support them, from the absolute need to retain the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, both for the future and temporarily, in the face of a regrettably provocative and unreasonable stance from the European Union.
I have listened to many powerful speeches, today and on previous days, from all parts of the Chamber and from all vantage points, on the Bill itself and the amendments to it. It will not be a surprise that I do not share the views of Scottish National party Members or their amendments; my view remains that those amendments may result in—or may explicitly seek, in many instances—the skewing of, or disruption to, the common market of the United Kingdom, which has served us so well for many centuries.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there are actually differences in regulations at the moment, and have been for many years? They have never disrupted trade within the UK.
Lee Rowley
I absolutely recognise that, which is why I chose my words extremely carefully in referencing the common market, rather than saying that we are absolutely the same. I accept that there are differences, but the overall benefit of the United Kingdom, and why I am a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, is that I see in the coming together of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England something greater than the sum of its parts. I know that we will never agree on that; I recognise that the hon. Lady has profound differences with me, but I hope she will accept my view that the UK is greater than the sum of its parts.
More broadly, I do not agree with some of the sentiments expressed today or in previous discussions regarding the Government’s position towards the EU, as outlined by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. It seems to me that the EU appears to have again successfully found our domestic fault-lines and pressure points, in this instance the internal market of the United Kingdom, and particularly Northern Ireland, to aid its own interests in the negotiations.
There is no doubt, as has been indicated by our exchange already, that the debate on the structuring of the Bill and the structure of our internal market is a challenging one in places, within this Chamber and beyond. To me, however, the Bill and its clauses seem only logical in supporting the key principles of mutual recognition of goods, recognition of qualifications and non-discrimination of goods and trading within the UK’s internal market, and from that follows a clear statement about the implications for our wider relationship with Europe as a consequence.
Lee Rowley
I will not. I apologise, but I wish to make some progress.
The idea that the negotiations will not be difficult or choppy is unrealistic. Our values of openness, internationalism, free trade, partnership, fairness and freedom never change, but we have to prepare our domestic legislation and ensure that it works. Certain key questions remain, however. What else can be done? How else can this be remedied? How can the United Kingdom protect its own interests, its fundamental, historic economic integrity and its right of self-determination? I have yet to hear one realistic alternative to the legislation in front of us today that would create a functioning, coherent and integrated internal market, based on a historic precedent, that would work and that would, as a result, allow us to be clear with our friends over the channel that, as a consequence, the economic integrity of the United Kingdom must be respected.
Deidre Brock
I rise to speak to amendment 89 and a number of other amendments that appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I also support Plaid Cymru’s excellent amendment 9.
Scottish architects have raised concerns about the Bill imposing the much lower English building standards on Scotland. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland pointed out this week that Scotland’s standards have helped prevent tragedies like that at Grenfell. Peter Drummond of the RIAS said that
“it is simply inexplicable that the bill seeks to align the more robust Scottish regulations with the English system. Those powers are now to be removed. The lowest common denominator within the UK will apply. And that is, on any fair reading, a spectacularly poor step backwards.”
One would think that England would want to move towards the Scottish standards, but the Bill makes it clear that England’s Government seek to bring Scotland’s standards down rather than improve English standards. That poverty of ambition will haunt England for decades, but it should not be allowed to shackle the rest of us.
In areas of devolved responsibility, the Government in Whitehall are the English Government rather than the UK Government. The Bill, under the myth of removing barriers to trade, ignores that division and seeks to force Scotland—and, of course, Wales and Northern Ireland—into a lockstep Union of diminishing standards and lessening protections, with a Government determined to rip away what they would term red tape and the rest of us term sensible precautions.
The White Paper singled out various building standards as a supposed barrier to the smooth functioning of the market, in spite of decades of experience showing that to be utter nonsense. What about other standards? Will the minimum tolerable standard for living accommodation be lost? Will teaching qualification standards be removed?
In answer to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who is no longer in his place, I have had a number of WhatsApp messages since the earlier exchange and I am told that in England a teacher can be unqualified or can switch subjects. For example, a PE teacher can start to teach physics if there is a shortage. That is not the case in Scotland. Scottish teachers must have a degree in teaching or in the subject they are teaching, plus a postgraduate qualification. Again, that is not the case in England, as I understand it. Will free schools and academy schools be foisted on an unwilling Scottish populous? Will the power grab destroy Scotland’s consumer protections?
The exemptions in schedule 1 include water and sewerage, to be sure, but clause 10 allows the Secretary of State to amend those exemptions by secondary legislation. Is this the back door to privatising Scottish Water?
The Bill is a parade of threats to Scotland, not least among which is the threat to our food and drink industry. The Government will remove food protections. Animal welfare standards, environmental standards and protections against genetically modified crops are all in the firing line. Ministers will tell us that this is not so, but let me tell them that no one believes them. England’s Government will not protect English consumers, but they should not get in the way of Scottish Governments protecting Scottish consumers.
I have solutions. The first is the obvious one and by far the best: Scotland as an independent nation state making her own decisions, which will happen soon. The second is less direct but would have some effect: instead of reducing everything to the lowest common beast, as is proposed in the Bill, raise it instead to the highest standard. Our amendment 89 would do that. Where goods are traded across the borders of these nations, let them be traded at the highest standards. Scotland has banned flammable cladding on high-rise buildings and that should be respected. A ban on hormone-treated beef should be respected, and so on. Respect the higher standard and protect the consumer, the brand reputations, the businesses and the investment—protect jobs. The higher standard should be the goal, not the lower. I urge Members to adopt that principle and Ministers to consider it.
There are other problems with the Bill. Regulations will be made in Whitehall. Unlike the EU process, this will not be co-decision-making. EU competences are constrained by the need to achieve consensus among member states. This regime will be dictatorial: rule from the bunker, not the negotiating table. The mutual recognition clause is actually the Whitehall superiority clause.
Scots academics have given this Bill short shrift. Professor Michael Dougan has been quoted at length in this debate. Professor Michael Keating, professor of politics at Aberdeen University, points out that under the 1999 devolution settlement there was no hierarchy of laws; some were reserved to Westminster and the rest were devolved. Under this Bill, UK Ministers would have
“powers to regulate a…wide range of otherwise devolved matters in the name of the internal market”.
Professor Nicola McEwen of Edinburgh University makes it clear that rules made by the devolved Administrations will not apply to goods or service providers that satisfy less strict regulations in England. She says that
“unfettered market access is given priority. EU principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are…excluded.”
Also on the chopping block would be the right to differentiate production methods in procurement, so there goes organic farming—even if it survives the drop in exports after the Government’s failure to agree an equivalence with the EU. This is an absolute mess, and that is why amendment 89 is so important.
Do not drag us down; use the good example set by a neighbour to raise up your own standards. Let us have goods crossing the national borders of these islands meeting the highest standards, rather than the lowest. There has been much ado about the fact that the Bill will potentially breach international law. It is a matter of at least equal concern that it would change our constitutional arrangements without asking the people for approval in a referendum. Furthermore, the Bill would give Ministers the right further to amend the constitutional settlement without the bother of primary legislation. Some folk would call that a coup d’état. It represents the dismantling of the devolved settlements, the disempowerment of this Parliament and the centralisation of power in the hands of a very few Ministers. Surely that is the mark of a failed state.
In short, this Bill is a mess that would have been better off consigned to a skip, but if we are all going to have to suffer it—we in Scotland, hopefully, for the shortest time possible—at least let us pitch for the higher standard, rather than the lower.
Dr Whitford
I also rise to speak to amendment 89 and the other amendments listed in my name and the names of my colleagues.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces two key trade mechanisms within the UK for the first time: mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) tries to make these sound benign, but that just shows his lack of ability to see what they look like from any of the devolved nations. Non-discrimination, which is covered in clauses 5 and 6, would affect labelling regarding the source of produce. It would therefore remove the ability for consumers to reduce their food miles or to support local producers if they choose to, and could be used to undermine or challenge protected geographical indicators or the Scottish brand—as in Scotch whisky and Scotch beef. Despite their long tradition and international recognition as Scottish products, we already see the promotion of British whisky and British haggis, of all things.
Clauses 2 and 3 cover mutual recognition, which creates a powerful deregulatory pressure, because if any UK nation has lower standards or regulations, the other three must just shut up and accept such goods. As England is the largest nation and economically the most powerful, it is assumed that its standards will dominate, particularly as the Secretary of State has the power to change the Bill on a whim if he wishes. Although clause 3(9) says that the Secretary of State “must consult” the devolved nations, I am afraid that the last four years have shown just how worthless and meaningless such a phrase is.
Clause 3(4) lists the aspects of a product that could come under mutual recognition, including its characteristics, performance standards, packaging and labelling, and certification.
There is even a catch-all line for
“anything not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)”.
Basically, every single aspect of commercial goods could be challenged under this legislation.
The Government claim, as indeed do many on the Conservative Benches, that the Bill is needed to maintain trade throughout the UK, yet previously trade continued without any problems, despite the variations in the four nations’ regulations. All three devolved Governments have been working to agree common frameworks to ensure that there are no obstacles to trade but also that the devolved powers and different priorities of the four nations are respected.
Drew Hendry
Does my hon. Friend agree that it tells a huge story that the Government have voted against those kinds of protections on 10 occasions?
Dr Whitford
Absolutely. An amendment was tabled by one of their own Members—the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—to protect food standards in farming.
Deidre Brock
Does my hon. Friend share my amazement that not a single Scottish Tory has attended today’s debate, despite the impact that the proposals will have on the devolved nations and on Scotland?
Dr Whitford
The Conservatives tend to count on the farming community in Scotland. I echo what others have said: the National Farmers Union of Scotland is none too happy with what has been happening, particularly the failure to protect standards.
That brings us to the dreaded chlorine-washed chicken. Of course, it is not the chlorine that is the issue—if someone is not a great swimmer, they will have swallowed more in a swimming pool; the concern is about why the chicken is washed in chlorine in the first place. Because of the overcrowding of poultry and poor animal welfare standards, the US has between seven and 10 times the salmonella food poisoning rate of the UK, even after washing its poultry. It is clear that most consumers are none too keen on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-fed beef, but the labelling restrictions under the Bill may well mean that they are not allowed to know. A lot of people may consider becoming vegetarian when such products appear, but that will not help them, because the US also allows higher pesticide residues.
After clause 46, which takes back control of spending in devolved areas, the mutual recognition clauses will have the biggest impact in respect of removing powers from the devolved Governments. Mutual recognition will mean that any devolved legislation to maintain or drive up standards will end up applying only to local producers and not to goods from elsewhere in the UK. That would, of course, put local producers at a disadvantage, without achieving the benefit that the devolved Government were seeking. The EU single market is based on mutual recognition, but the EU generally sets higher standards rather than lower ones and, as was mentioned previously, new standards are agreed by all 27—previously 28—nations. Unlike the UK, the EU accepts derogation for social benefits such as public health, consumer protection, waste reduction or tackling climate change. The Bill has no such derogations at all.
It has often been the devolved nations that have driven forward ideas and legislation in the UK. That should be welcomed, not obstructed. On health, Scotland was the first UK nation to introduce the smoking ban in 2006, and it led the way on the minimum-unit pricing of alcohol in 2018, which Wales is now seeking to follow, but this was specifically attacked as a regulatory restriction in the White Paper and could fall foul of either mutual recognition or non-discrimination—the Government do not seem to be very clear on that. While legislation that is already in place is exempt, any change to that legislation could bring it within the scope of the Bill, so that might act as a disincentive to increasing the unit price on alcohol in the future. Indeed, the whole Bill is a disincentive to creative legislation within the devolved Governments to improve life for their citizens.
On the environment, Wales was the first to charge for carrier bags in all shops in 2011, followed a couple of years later by Northern Ireland and Scotland. England finally followed in 2015, but only for large retailers. Last year, Scotland was the first UK nation to ban plastic stemmed cotton buds, which make up 5% to 10% of marine waste. Yet Scotland’s plans for a deposit return scheme to increase recycling and reduce litter is attacked in the White Paper. If the devolved nations have to always wait for the slowest, innovation and action will be stifled.
Part 3 of the Bill establishes similar new rules over professional qualifications and, ironically, seems to be modelling itself on freedom of movement. Under clause 22(2), anyone recognised as professionally qualified in one part of the UK must be accepted in all other nations of the UK. Of course, medical qualifications such as mine are part of a UK-wide registration, but there are professions with specific requirements to be registered in Scotland and Wales.
I note that, miraculously, there were still enough lawyers left in the Government to make sure that the new rule did not apply to the legal profession, as Scots law is of course completely separate, but what about other professions? England has introduced nursing apprentices and nursing associates, while Scotland still maintains nursing as an academic profession. Scotland and Wales both require a teaching qualification, but in England anyone with a degree can become a teacher without any formal teacher training. Education in Scotland was not devolved 20 years ago, but like Scots law and the Church of Scotland, it has been a separate entity since prior to the Act of Union and was protected in that Act.
This Bill is a piece of wanton vandalism. The Tories never supported devolution, and this Bill is driven by anti-devolution politics and control freakery, rather than anything to do with economics or business. There is an alternative to this high-handed and heavy-handed legislation. The UK Government should get back to the table and continue working on agreeing common frameworks, instead of winding back two decades of devolution.
I can tell the House that, regardless of their views on independence, the vast majority of people in Scotland support devolution. They appreciate the value of maintaining a unified public NHS and of Scotland’s wellbeing policies, from the baby box to free personal care. Last Friday was the sixth anniversary of our independence referendum, when the people of Scotland held control of their future in their own hands for 15 hours, but sadly gave it back. Among the broken promises of “Better Together”, which achieved that outcome, were “Vote No to stay in the EU” and promises of more devolution, not less, and of Scotland being an “equal partner” in a “family of nations”. This Bill leaves any shred of such a claim twisting in the wind. If the Prime Minister and his Government think this Bill will strengthen their precious Union, I have news for them: it will do precisely the opposite.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 9, which I have tabled with the support of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have frequently heard from Ministers and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place, that this is not a political Bill. Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) emphasised that in his wind-up. He said that he wanted
“to put the Bill into context, so that we can see where it sits…This is an economic Bill”.—[Official Report, 15 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 263.]
I simply disagree. I will leave to one side the fact that the Bill breaks international law. I am just talking about the sections of the Bill that are before us today, for which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible.
This is a political Bill because, at its heart, it is about the question of who decides, which is of huge constitutional importance. The powers that went to the European Community nearly 50 years ago are returning to a UK that has had, despite appearances, a constitutional makeover. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have devolved Governments, and that constitutes profound change. To expect that the responsibilities that are returning from Europe will map neatly back on to our new constitutional settlement is to live in the past.
Looking at some parts of the Bill, we have to wonder whether those drafting and proposing it truly understand what is devolved and what is reserved and the implications of that. We have heard from some Members today who have not previously engaged with this either. The Government clearly believe that the default position in relation to returning powers should be to Westminster, whereas the Scottish Government believe that it should be to Holyrood unless specifically reserved. I go back to what I said in relation to part 4 of the Bill last week. Breaching this divide means consensus, consultation and collaboration—a four nations approach, which has to be the root of all we do as a United Kingdom.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Lady agree that there requires to be added another “c”: consent? We hear a lot about consent for the people of Northern Ireland, but for such a radical change and undermining of devolution, we hear nothing of any consent to this process for the people of Scotland.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I would argue that consensus also implies consent, because it is about seeking agreement from all parts.
There are other areas where the Bill gestures towards the reality of our constitutional settlement but simply offers no compatibility. As I mentioned last week, there is no answer on the face of the Bill as to how disputes between the four nations will be resolved, which is surely crucial to the functioning of the internal market.
This Bill applies more pressure to the splintering foundations of our constitutional settlement, so of course it is a political Bill. If the UK Government and members of the Conservative and Unionist party care about the United Kingdom, they will have to educate themselves. Measures such as those in this Bill that fail to respect the devolution settlement are giving the Scottish National party and its Members here free rein in relation to their narrative about Scotland being ignored and controlled from afar, with the only solution being to leave the UK. How can a Bill like this not be political when the future of the UK is arguably at stake?
We urgently need to assess how we work together as four nations—as one United Kingdom—if we are to overcome the politics of grievance and division. That means a real focus on working collaboratively for the whole UK while respecting the devolution settlements. I call on the Minister to recognise that there are plenty of ways in which the Bill could be improved in that regard, not least by giving the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments the ability to appoint a member to the board of the Competition and Markets Authority, as proposed by my party’s amendment to part 4 last week, which would give real ownership. I would be interested to hear his response to that.
It goes beyond this Bill. We need a total rethink of how the four Governments interact, because our constitutional settlement does not work for the whole UK. There has been substantial change since 1973, and devolution is now 20 years old. The UK remains a country with one of the most centralised Governments in the world. With devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but the UK Government operating under the old pre-devolution structures, we have created the perfect storm for those who wish the end of the UK to drive a coach and horses through an unwritten constitution.
Members of this House have to recognise, when they look at increasing support for leaving the UK, that the feeling that our constitutional settlement is broken is not limited to Scotland. If we do not attempt to fix it, we will lose it. My new clause 9 aims to improve the Bill but also to provide a way to allow us to reinvent our constitutional settlement. It would require the Business Secretary to publish a framework for a UK council of Ministers three months after the passage of the Bill. The council would ensure the effective functioning of the internal market, with representation from all the devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government. That would be a way of getting back to a model of collective buy-in, working collaboratively for the whole UK while respecting the devolution settlements. We can work in a much more transparent and accountable way together. It is entirely possible.
This new clause would also be the first step towards the development of a more federal approach to the UK, which will benefit all of us. Ultimately, that is what this Union needs to survive. We cannot rely on the old institutions, which are not fit for purpose. The hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) highlighted the consensual approach to standard agreements within the EU. Given the Scottish National party’s desire to join the EU, such a federal step, if taken by the UK Government, would arguably negate one of the central arguments for departing the UK. A more federal approach would give people in the devolved nations a degree of autonomy that, had it been on the ballot paper in 2014, would have been voted for.
I call on the Minister to reflect on the measures in the Bill. We have to do so much more to ensure that the devolved nations and regions of England are listened to and can play an active part. I urge the Government to bring forward amendments that will give the devolved nations a degree of buy-in to this piece of legislation. That would at least be a start.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
May I say what a fine speech that was? I may not agree with much of what was in it, but it was a heartfelt plea to protect our Union. To Unionist politicians such as me, it is a strange thing indeed—I am elected in Bury but I consider myself part of the same country as the Scottish National party Members. I may have a naive point of view, but I believe that we all live in the same country, with defined, different nationalities—I understand that. However, I consider myself British, and although SNP colleagues may well not do this, I consider them to be British as well—[Interruption.] I see the shaking of the heads, but the preservation of a Union that I think has benefited the whole of the people of all our islands is so important.
Rather than commenting on internal Scottish or Welsh politics, I would like to make some general points on the Bill and why I support it. In the era and the time that we are living in, a Bill that regulates and standardises the way that firms and businesses interact with one another across the United Kingdom has to be a good thing. I understand the arguments that have been put forward, but from my point of view, free and unfettered access, fair access and fair treatment for all individuals and businesses is an honourable intention.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there has been about a year’s worth of work on agreeing common frameworks to deal with difference? The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about having a consensus. Would that not be a more successful approach than one country bullying the other three?
James Daly
I think that there is a lot of merit in that approach. I suspect—I am sure that the hon. Lady will tell me that I am wrong—that, literally, Ministers could say anything and the Scottish National party would not agree and would find a different argument to take a different course. However, I think it is a very valid point.
I want to make two simple points. I think that the Bill is meritorious and positive and that it seeks to achieve an outcome that increases prosperity for everyone within the United Kingdom. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in this debate, but I was somewhat surprised that on the first day of debate, SNP Members were arguing that money should not be invested in Scotland because it comes from the United Kingdom Treasury, so—[Interruption.] That is certainly my perspective—
James Daly
I will just develop my point and then of course the hon. Lady can come back in. I see a Bill that allows Ministers of the Crown of the United Kingdom to invest moneys in different parts of the United Kingdom, in collaboration with the devolved Assemblies, as an extremely positive thing. The argument will come back that there is nothing in the Bill to confirm what the framework is—whether they are going to build a bridge or whatever the investment will be—but I would never stand here and say, and I cannot understand the argument to the contrary, that money should not be invested in an area to benefit citizens because it comes from a certain pocket. Hon. Members constantly argue that the EU is a positive change for good. They had no objection to the way EU money came in. I believe that my Government have the most honourable and positive intentions to invest moneys in all parts of the United Kingdom to kickstart and supercharge the economy to get us through the coronavirus period, and that is why I think that this Bill is a positive step.
The Temporary Chair (Siobhain McDonagh)
Order. I am sorry, but we have strayed a bit off the point. I like to give flexibility and latitude, but I do not want to kick off a long-standing discussion about something that was discussed last week.
James Daly
To get to the point about regulation and standards, I have listened to the debate and there have been numerous comments regarding a race to the bottom, and a derogation of standards. I can see no evidence at all in the papers that I have seen that anything other than the highest standards are to be maintained in regulation, food and all the other powers and competences that the UK Government will now be administering. There is no evidence for any of this. I appreciate the point that has been made, but numerous examples can be put forward by those who say, “I have concerns about this and concerns about that. This might happen or that might happen.” The central point is that the UK Government have repeatedly stated their commitment to the highest standards, whether that be in food, health, animal welfare standards and all the other examples that have been given.
Dr Whitford
Why, then, will the Government refuse to protect those standards in legislation? We have had an Agriculture Bill and a Trade Bill, so there was plenty of opportunity to put in writing the commitment not to go below the levels that we currently have.
James Daly
Certainly, in my view, the Government have not at any point refused to give such a commitment. Let me repeat again for the hon. Member: the Government have repeatedly stated their commitment to the highest possible standards. I am talking about EU standards—standards that have regulated businesses and the various sectors of the economy to which I have referred. I would accept the argument if some evidence could be pointed to by SNP Members, but there is no evidence at all that the Government are going to derogate from the highest possible regulatory standards.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman says that there is no evidence at all that the Government will lower standards, but there is nothing to stop them doing so in the legislation. It is all very well their telling each other, chatting in the corridors and saying to us, “No, don’t worry, we won’t do that”. They have to put it in the legislation, otherwise how are we supposed to be clear that we will not have to lower standards against our will?
James Daly
Many, many things could happen in life, but the point remains that not one Opposition Member has been able to point to one action of the Government—they have not pointed to literally anything—that would indicate that they are derogating from the highest possible standards and the standards that we enjoy at this moment in time and that we have under the European Union.
This is a good Bill and this is a positive Bill. Rather than dwelling on the legal argument, which would be somewhat going off the point in respect of where we are today and which I am tempted to do, I will say that this is a Bill to strengthen our United Kingdom, to invest moneys in every part of it, to ensure that we have free unfettered access and to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are within the UK internal market, as set out in the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. I congratulate Ministers on this Bill as it will only do good for our fellow citizens in all parts of the United Kingdom.
David Simmonds
At this stage in the debate, my challenge is to try to say something original on the various different topics that we are considering. Today’s business concerns mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Having spent many happy days of my life in the Centre Borschette on the rue Froissart in Brussels, alongside very good colleagues from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the United Kingdom and the other composite states of the European Union, debating these issues in respect of, in my case, education, while committees alongside us debated those issues around financial services, veterinary products, fish and every possible type of goods and services, it is clear that the United Kingdom has long played a key role in writing these rules.
I welcome the commitment that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) that, at the end of the transition period and as part of the process of withdrawal, the United Kingdom’s commitment is that all those standards are written into the law of the United Kingdom, so the minimum standards that apply to us as a member of the European Union that already prohibit chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef will become the law of the land.
Let me try to concentrate on three points that have not been covered in sufficient detail yet. The first is the importance of the integrity of the UK single market and why this matters in the context of the trade deal that we are seeking to achieve. In 2018, the United Kingdom was fined £2.4 billion for failing to uphold its treaty obligations as a member of the EU to enforce the standards that we are committed to apply at our borders.
Having spent so much time in Brussels, I do understand that the UK is a little notorious with our friends and allies, and the risk they fear is that the United Kingdom, with our global reach in terms of our international maritime trade, will become a backdoor into the European single market for goods that do not meet the minimum standards that we need to uphold. That is a legitimate concern, especially as Brussels expects to receive significant amounts of trade tariffs on those goods that are coming into the UK single market and, potentially, with an open border on the island of Ireland, would then be re-exported. We need to respect the fact that that is a genuine concern on the part of the European Union, we need to pay the attention that Ministers have referred to to ensuring we uphold rigorous standards on our own borders, and we need to ensure that our voters and the wider public recognise the commitment that the United Kingdom single market will continue to uphold the high standards that we have in the European Union, and in future, where we seek to diverge, it will be in an upward direction, with higher standards, rather than lower.
The second issue I would like to touch on is devolution. I do have some sympathy with the concerns of Members from devolved nations about the power grab point. Many colleagues—Tony Buchanan and Stewart Maxwell from Scotland, Arnold Hatch and Jonathan Bell from Ireland and many others from across the United Kingdom, and other Members of this House, including the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—have played a role in exercising UK local and regional government powers in Brussels over the way in which we, as part of that wider single market, both regulate and choose to spend the funds that we are part of, like the European structural fund and the European social fund.
I note that those issues have already been exhaustively debated, but a point that has not been aired very much in the debate is that, following the ending of the arrangements whereby we participated in those bodies, we have a range of UK Joint Committees, including ones that are there to exercise a similar scrutiny and oversight role around how that regulation is undertaken and how those funds are expended. It should be of concern to us that with an agreement already in place—I know Scotland has nominated SNP Members to the Joint Committee, with the Committee of the Regions to supervise and provide oversight of the run-out period of the European structural funds—we still need to hear a little more about how we are all committed to making those arrangements, which were committed to by Ministers on the Floor of the House, work effectively in the interests of our UK single market in future.
We are seeing many parts of our constitution—our local authorities, our regional authorities—stepping up to the plate, and our businesses being a part of that. It is very sad not to hear that debated and aired in this place, especially when in the case of structural funds there is £730 million unspent that the UK has already contributed, which will be returned to Brussels if Members across the House do not put pressure on our Front-Bench team to make sure it is spent by the end of this year.
Finally, I would like to touch on the point about legality. I am not a lawyer by background, but it is very clear to me that this debate has been something of a lawyers’ delight. We have had advice from those with eminent legal qualifications about whether things do or do not contravene international law and what triggers those decisions, and opinions given by people with immense political experience about the impact that that will have on the UK’s reputation. It strikes me, however, that what is being proposed by the Government is quite similar to what is common practice when sending our armed forces to places where there is a high degree of tension, when the rules of engagement say that people will not fire unless fired upon. What I am hearing from the Government is that these arrangements are there in the backstop so that unless the negotiations— which, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland indicated, are proceeding in good faith—break down irretrievably, they will not come into play, but it is a fact that, whether they are in the Bill or not, the UK would have recourse to those provisions if we needed them, and it is an appropriate precaution for the Government to take to bring those forward now.
These kinds of conflicts are not unusual. On 5 May, the German federal court handed down a judgment in respect of Germany’s signing up to the European Central Bank’s buying of bonds in order to enable a European recovery from coronavirus, and said that that was not lawful and conflicted with the domestic law of Germany. While there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Government there, I understand that that is one of many judgments that have been handed down over the years demonstrating that there will be these conflicts between domestic and international law and that they need to be resolved not as a matter of taking down a legal textbook, but as a matter of negotiation in good faith between partners and allies. I have every confidence that that is what will be achieved.
I understand the fury and frustration of many of our colleagues who have given so much of their political lives in seeking to reach a deal. To me it is very clear that both sides are seeking to negotiate in good faith and the more that we can respect that, the better. The European Union is our largest, our most valuable, and, importantly, our most mature single market partner that we engage with. It is crucial to our economy and enormously valuable to their economy that we get a deal. I can see that behind the scenes Ministers and negotiators on all sides have been putting the mechanisms and structures in place to deliver that. I support the Government in seeking to ensure that the deal is in place for the good of the United Kingdom and our allies by the end of the year.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name, and in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We are the end of four full days of debate on the Bill. We have heard from many new Members, some of whom I, until recently, served with on the Education Committee, as we have just heard. Remarkably, we also heard a former Conservative Prime Minister, a former Northern Ireland Secretary, the Conservative Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee, and many other highly respected Members across the House voicing their deep concerns about the Bill. Yet as we come to the final day in Committee, aside from a small amendment on a further vote, the Government have, I am afraid, been typically blinkered in their response.
Such is the significance and seriousness of the Bill, it has even caught the attention of presidential candidates and the Congress in the United States for all the wrong reasons. At every stage, good and decent people inside and outside this House have warned the Government that this is a bad and damaging Bill: five former Prime Ministers; four former Lord Chief Justices; three former Conservative Attorneys General; two senior Government Law Officers, now resigned; and even one want-to-be director general for the World Trade Organisation, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). Many of them are self-proclaimed ardent Brexiteers. The Government’s charge that this is an attempt to stop Brexit has fallen very short indeed.
Most, including the Labour party, support the intention behind the Bill. An internal market Bill could have achieved widespread support: a strong, flourishing UK internal market, respecting the devolution settlement and underpinning the Union; Northern Ireland’s unique place within our Union safeguarded; a successful trade deal with the EU delivered. Yet the legislative hooligans in No. 10 won out and instead we have this blunderbuss of a Bill fronted by the Prime Minister, which undermines each and every one of those intentions.
The Prime Minister promised an oven-ready trade deal with the EU, yet the antics of the Government around the Bill now mean we are further than ever from achieving that. The Prime Minister promised to safeguard Northern Ireland’s unique place within our Union, yet the unpicking in the Bill of delicate and sensitive agreements is now putting that at risk. The Prime Minister promised a successful global Britain doing trade deals around the world, yet this Bill’s disregard for a treaty the Prime Minister himself signed up to less than a year ago now makes his signature not worth the paper it is written on. The Prime Minister promised to strengthen and keep intact our precious United Kingdom, yet the utter disrespect of the devolution settlement in the Bill has handed the First Minister of Scotland all the ammunition she needs to power her campaign for Scottish independence. We have sought, at every stage, to improve the Bill in the national interest. Today, we try again.
I will turn now to our principal amendment. New clause 11 would place a duty on Ministers to report on the progress and impact of the Bill. Throughout the Committee stage, the Government have sought to reassure both sides of the House of their good intentions in relation to the common frameworks process, the Joint Committee talks and their ambitions for the shared prosperity fund, yet their warm words have not been backed by either statutory underpinning or transparency in the publication of their plans. As such, our new clause 11 gives the Government one last opportunity to report back to the House regularly on those important issues.
On common frameworks, the Government should stand by their stated intentions. Ministers herald this approach yet refuse to put them on a statutory footing. Our new clause would require Ministers to return to the House regularly to update us on the progress of agreeing common standards. Crucially, they would have to demonstrate that they had agreed them, as they said they would, and that they were acting in good faith in exhausting all opportunities to do so before using the powers in this Bill. For the sake of completeness, we believe—for those who did not hear my comments last week—that the ultimate arbiter of the UK internal market has to be the UK Parliament. However, the Government could and should have taken a more respectful and co-operative approach to agreeing the minimum standards that underpin that market.
On the collective desire for a shared prosperity fund to replace the EU structural funds, we had a long debate with concerns raised across the Committee about how these funds will be distributed. The promised framework has yet to be published, and Members from all parties have been left unconvinced by the Government’s reassurances. We want to ensure that within three months of this Bill becoming an Act, the Government must produce the framework and operating principles of the new shared prosperity fund. At its heart, funds should follow need and be administered locally.
We have heard much over the past four days in Committee about how the clauses in part 5 would be used only as a very last resort after serious breaches in terms of bad faith by the EU. Yet we have heard a lot less about how the conversations are progressing through the Joint Committee. Indeed, we have heard contradictory accounts from the Government as to whether the EU is or is not acting in bad faith. It is about time we had a more transparent and honest appraisal of Joint Committee progress. Our new clause 11 would put a legal duty on the Government to report back to the House on this within three months.
Our amendments 86 and 87 seek to clarify the Government’s position about the impact of this Bill on public procurement policies of the devolved Administrations. Public procurement is a crucial lever in the promotion of industrial strategy, regional economic development, employment, and environmental standards. Unless specifically exempted, there are concerns that restrictions may be placed on the ability of the devolved authorities to adopt new or revised public procurement policies. Will the Minister confirm that public procurement is outside the scope of the Bill?
Dr Whitford
I echo the importance of public procurement remaining a devolved power. The Government contracted Amazon to deliver and collect home tests for covid without bothering to think through the fact that Amazon does not deliver to huge swathes of the Scottish highlands and islands. That kind of ignorance is the reason we need devolution.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady makes a good point. As Labour has been arguing throughout this crisis, local decisions are how we are going to overcome this virus, if we can make them effectively.
Many of the Government amendments are a tidying-up exercise and we have no quarrel with them. However, as learned Friends on the Labour Benches and in the other place, as well as on the Government Benches, know, Government amendment 66, which we will be voting on tonight, still amounts to tearing up an international agreement and breaking an international treaty that the Prime Minister has himself just signed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said in his excellent speech yesterday, the breach of international law is not when we enact the provisions of this Bill, but prior to that. The Government could not answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) yesterday regarding the point at which this international treaty is being broken. Many would argue that even publishing these measures breaches article 5 of the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister clarify that for us today?
The ink is not even dry on the bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU—a treaty that is about and for dealing with some of the difficult issues that we have debated over four days. Reneging on that treaty so soon, and the loss of trust resulting from that, is not comparable with a disagreement arising from a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, as was the case with, say, prisoner voting, which was raised by Members across the House. Government Members do not have to take our word for it. They should listen to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who delivered the most scathing rebuke of this Bill yesterday, saying that the Government were “acting recklessly and irresponsibly” and warning of “untold damage” to the UK’s international reputation.
It could have been all so different. The Government could have worked cross-party and in a respectful way with the devolved Administrations to build a strong internal market based on mutual respect, to deliver the “oven-ready” deal we were promised, to enhance our reputation around the world, not diminish it, and to strengthen our precious Union, not put it at risk. Ministers could accept new clauses this evening and introduce further amendments on Report that unite the whole House. They could drop the clauses of the Bill that are so divisive and against the national interest. I hope that, for once, this Government will remove their blinkers and listen.
Paul Scully
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to conclude this debate. We have heard a number of passionate contributions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who were passionate about the Union and the need to ensure that businesses can continue to trade in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England without interruption.
Before I address the details of the clauses and amendments, let me explain what that means to each of the nations in the UK. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain, and nearly 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is about three times as much as their exports to the whole of the rest of the EU. That is £51.2 billion worth of trade for Scotland, £10.6 billion for Northern Ireland and £30.1 billion for Wales. The Bill secures and clarifies the internal market, which has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries.
The Bill will establish a market access commitment by enshrining mutual recognition and non-discrimination in law. The principle of mutual recognition is that goods and services from one part of the UK will continue to be recognised across the country, and that ensures that the devolved Administrations will benefit from freedom outside the EU. As the transition period ends, they will gain increased powers to set their own rules and standards across a wide range of policy areas within their competence. At the same time, this provides firm assurances to our businesses, which they have been asking for, that their goods can continue to flow freely throughout the United Kingdom.
Non-discrimination ensures that there is continued equal opportunity for companies to trade in the UK regardless of where in the UK their business is based. Measures in the Bill will also ensure that Northern Ireland qualifying goods benefit from the market access commitment and receive mutual recognition in the rest of the UK. That means that we are going to fulfil our commitment to legislate for unfettered access, as we promised the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.
In addition, the Bill will ensure that the same principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination continue to apply to services, and it will establish a process for the recognition of professional qualifications across the UK internal market, allowing professionals such as doctors and teachers qualified in any part of the UK nations to continue work in any other part, as all hon. Members would expect.
A couple of canards kept coming up during the debate, including one about teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out, someone needs to have a qualification in the first place for it to be recognised in another nation of the UK, but it is true that the General Teaching Council for Scotland will continue to regulate teaching in Scotland, as happens at the moment, uninterrupted. This package guarantees a continuation of the centuries-old position that there should be no economic barriers to trading within the UK. Businesses need this—they are asking for this. Citizens need this. That is why it is right that we deliver this Bill.
I turn to the amendments in question today, starting with some of those tabled by the Government. Government amendments 90, 91 and 92 are technical drafting amendments that I hope the House will be able to pass.
Government amendments 5 and 6 are designed to ensure that local sanitary and phytosanitary measures are based on science and are technically justified to prevent barriers to trade arising that go beyond what is necessary to effectively prevent pests and diseases spreading to pest and disease-free areas.
Dr Whitford
Does the Minister not accept that trying to improve public health, reduce waste and protect the environment are perfectly good reasons for a derogation?
Paul Scully
As I say, we are trying to keep this narrow so that one part of the UK does not face discrimination in another. We want to make sure that we get the balance right between having the benefits of the UK internal market and having legitimate aims on an environmental basis, on public health or on any number of other areas.
Amendment 36 seeks to alter the process by which the list of legitimate policy aims may be changed in the future. These aims allow for an exemption from the requirement prohibiting indirect discrimination, and that could therefore be cited as necessary for implementing a measure that is indirectly discriminatory. The aims are tightly drawn, but the Government recognise that it is important to retain flexibility for the future—for example, to reflect the experience of the effect of the market access principles in practice and based on business feedback. That is why the power is necessary and we cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment 80 seeks to exclude fisheries in Scotland from the market access principles. It is essential that the Scottish industry is able to maximise the return on its fish by being able to access a diverse range of markets and a wide range of consumers. Scottish fish is sold across the UK. However, this amendment would create new barriers to trade, going against the fundamental purpose of the Bill. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about procurement. With regard to amendment 87, the Government intend to deliver measures on procurement through a wider package of procurement reform that is being implemented shortly after the Bill. A procurement rules reform Green Paper has been drafted and there will be a formal consultation. The aim is for separate primary legislation to follow.
I turn to new clause 5 and amendment 40. The protection of our environment and maintenance of high food standards are of great importance, and the UK Government are committed to maintaining standards across the UK in all these areas. The intention of the amendments appears to be to prevent Ministers from developing standards that differ from those in the EU, even where UK standards better serve the needs of the UK. On that basis, I urge Members not to move the new clause and the amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for tabling amendments 81 to 85, as they raise the important issue of the recognition of professional qualifications in the common travel area. However, I must oppose the amendments as set out. This Bill is not the vehicle for honouring our commitments in relation to the common travel area. I can reassure the hon. Members that the UK Government acknowledge that the recognition of professional qualifications is an essential facilitator of the right to work associated with the common travel area. My officials are progressing work in relation to the common travel area so that the UK can continue to meet its commitments.
Amendment 27 seeks to give devolved Ministers the ability to decide which qualifications can be accepted as part of the internal market. By giving devolved Ministers the power to decide which qualifications should benefit from these provisions, we could reduce the number of professionals who can move within the internal market. The alternative recognition process outlined in clause 24 grants the flexibility, and will enable authorities to assess on a case-by-case basis whether a person’s existing qualifications and experience are sufficient evidence of the skills required for the profession in question.
I turn to new clause 10 and thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her seat, for her contribution. As I have tried to highlight, the protection of the environment is hugely important and something to which this Government are very committed. However, passing this amendment would not be the best way to protect the environment. We have made sure that there are exemptions from indirect discrimination where the health of animals and plants and humans is concerned. Further to this, the powers in the Environment Bill will mean that future Governments must be open and transparent about the impact of future primary legislation on environmental protections.
Amendment 88 seeks to prevent the Bill from being placed into schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998, thus preventing it from being protected from modification or repealed by the Scottish Parliament. If the Bill were to be modifiable by one or more devolved legislatures, it would not be able to provide consumers and businesses with the vital certainty that they currently enjoy. Businesses trading in Scotland would need to consider how the Scottish Parliament may seek to amend or repeal elements of this legislation. That would create disruptive uncertainty, which must be avoided, particularly as we seek to support the UK’s economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.
I turn to amendments 9 and 39, and new clause 9. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to understand and respond to their concerns. In accordance with the Sewel convention, the UK Government have requested legislative consent motions for this Bill from all the devolved legislatures. New clause 9 in particular would place intergovernmental structures in statute, limiting the capacity for discussion among all Governments and the capacity to adapt to this change.
New clause 11 seeks to provide Parliament with information on the working of the Act in a context of developing common frameworks. It is essential that the Office for the Internal Market is available and able to perform its functions at arm’s length from political interference from the UK Government and devolved Administrations.
Paul Scully
I must bring my response to a close. The amendment risks undermining the independence of the CMA and its global reputation for producing credible, impartial and expert analysis.
Paul Scully
I cannot at the moment, I am afraid. I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division, for the reasons that I have given, and that they will support the Government’s amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about amendment 66, and I assure him that we will be moving it. I thank him for his work on resolving this issue.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is not in her place, talked about the concerns over the Belfast agreement. The Bill does not interact directly with the Belfast agreement. It does interact clearly with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but it seeks to make the Belfast agreement work in certain given circumstances.
Kevin Hollinrake
Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned the Sewel convention. Could he set out exactly what influence it has on legislation that is made in Brussels?
Paul Scully
Exactly. As my hon. Friend knows, it has none. Importantly, as we bring back power from the EU to the UK Government, we will work to pass on many, many powers to the devolved legislatures, whether it is the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. They will be getting powers, and we will all work together as the UK to give businesses the continuity that they need with our UK internal market.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I have several pages of amendments and clauses that I will put before the House. At this stage, may I reiterate the Speaker’s stricture? I will do this now, and I will do it again before the vote, but people are normally already moving when we do this just before the vote, and nobody is moving at the moment, so I have a captive audience. I therefore use this time to re-emphasise that if Divisions take place on any of the clauses, new clauses or amendments, the Front Benchers can go towards the exit in front of me to vote and use the card readers. Let us hope that they are working this time; they should be. Everybody else, please—calmly and with social distancing—leave through the exit behind me and make your way towards Westminster Hall, where you will do a socially distanced conga towards the Division Lobbies to present your cards to the readers. I hope that that is understood.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
The mutual recognition principle for goods
Amendments made: 90, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) can be sold there without contravening any relevant requirements that would apply to their sale,”
The amendment makes a drafting correction to clause 2(1)(b) to cater more clearly for relevant requirements that take the form of a prohibition. The new wording means that the previous reference in parenthesis to a case where there are no relevant requirements is no longer necessary.
Amendment 91, page 2, line 15, leave out from “can” to end of line 17 and insert
“be sold by auction in the originating part without contravening any applicable relevant requirements there”.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The amendment makes clause 2|(2) conform to the wording of clause 2)1)(b) as amended by Amendment 90.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Exclusion from market access principles
Amendments made: 5, page 42, line 5, leave out from “The” to “not” on line 6 and insert
“United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to (and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do”.
This amendment means that measures aimed at preventing the spread of pests or diseases are capable of being excluded from the non-discrimination principle for goods (as well as the mutual recognition principle for goods).
Amendment 6, page 42, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) In determining whether the fifth condition is met the following consideration is to be taken into account: whether the legislation, taken together with any similar legislation applying in the restricting part, imposes measures of similar severity in response to threats of similar severity arising from the potential movement of the pest or disease into, or within, the restricting part (wherever those threats originate).”
This amendment means that, in assessing whether a measure aimed at preventing the spread of pests or diseases can reasonably be justified as necessary, account will be taken of whether similar threats are addressed with similar severity.
Amendment 7, page 45, line 2, at end insert—
“Fertilisers and pesticides
8A The mutual recognition principle for goods does not apply to (and section 2(3) does not affect the operation of) any of the following—
(a) a prohibition or condition imposed in accordance with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers, as it forms part of retained EU law;
(b) regulations under section 74A(1) of the Agriculture Act 1970, to the extent that such regulations can reasonably be justified as a response to a risk to—
(i) the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or
(ii) the environment.
8B The mutual recognition principle for goods does not apply to (and section 2(3) does not affect the operation of) any of the following—
(a) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (etc), as it forms part of retained EU law;
(b) the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/2131);
(c) the Plant Protection Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (S.R. (N.I.) 2011 No. 295).”—(Michael Tomlinson.)
This amendment excludes certain measures in relation to fertilisers and pesticides from the operation of the mutual recognition principle for goods.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Interpretation of other expressions used in Part 1
Amendments made: 93, page 8, line 38, after “thing” insert
“(including any packaging or label)”.
The amendment clarifies that “goods” for the purposes of Part 1 includes their packaging and any label attached to them.
Amendment 94, page 8, line 41, leave out
“significant regulated step in their production”
and insert
“significant production step which is a regulated step”.
The amendment, with Amendment 95 clarifies the rule for determining whether goods have been produced in a part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part 1.
Amendment 95, page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) A production step occurring in a part of the United Kingdom is “regulated” for the purposes of subsection (3) if —
(a) it is the subject of any statutory requirement in that part of the United Kingdom, or
(b) it is a step that could materially affect a person’s ability to sell the goods without contravening—
(i) any relevant requirement for the purposes of the mutual recognition principle for goods, or
(ii) any statutory requirement that is excluded from being a relevant requirement by section 4(1),
that would be applicable to a sale of the goods in that part of the United Kingdom (being a sale of a kind for which the goods are being produced).
(4A) A production step is “significant” for the purposes of subsection (3) if it is significant in terms of the character of the goods being produced and the purposes for which they are to be sold or used (but see subsections (4B) and (4C)).
(4B) A production step falling within any of the following descriptions is not significant (whether or not it is regulated)—
(a) activities carried out specifically to ensure goods do not deteriorate before being sold (such as maintaining them at or below a particular temperature);
(b) activities carried out solely for purposes relevant to their presentation for sale (such as cleaning or pressing fabrics or sorting different coloured items for packaging together);
(c) activities involving a communication of any kind with a regulatory or trade body (such as registering the goods or notifying the goods or anything connected with them or their production);
(d) activities carried out for the purpose of testing or assessing any characteristic of the goods (such as batch testing a pharmaceutical product).
(4C) A production step involving the packaging, labelling or marking of goods is not significant (whether or not it is regulated) unless the step is fundamental to the character of the goods and the purposes for which they are to be sold or used.”
The amendment explains terms used in clause 14(3) as amended by Amendment 94.
Amendment 92, page 9, line 27, at end insert—
“(10) “Contravening” includes failing to comply.”—(Michael Tomlinson.)
This drafting amendment ensures that references to contravening a relevant requirement cover a failure to comply with such a requirement (for example a failure to comply with a condition).
“Notarial services” |
“Notarial services” |
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Amendments and new clauses to be moved on Report may now be tabled. Members should table them through the Public Bill Office inbox: PBOHoC@parliament.uk.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of the orders that we are about to deal with are quite dated, but I assume that they have been debated in a Committee upstairs. They touch on very intimate parts of our liberty and our choice. Is there any protocol on the circumstances in which they could be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than upstairs in a Committee stitched up by the Committee of Selection?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The default procedures of the House, as the right hon. Member knows, are designed such that these measures are not debated on the Floor of the House. Of course, any Committee stages upstairs could have been attended. If any of these measures do not quite fit with his understanding as to what is acceptable, he is able to shout “Object”. I will take that objection, and he will have the opportunity to have his name recorded in a deferred Division tomorrow.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to raise the issue of the inconsistency between quite a few of these remaining orders. Because of the delay in introducing these orders, some of them amend orders that are earlier on the Order Paper. We know that members of the public find it increasingly difficult to comprehend the changing scene of regulation on criminality and restriction of liberty. Surely if a regulation is amended by a subsequent statutory instrument, there should not be a need for the original statutory instrument to be approved by the House. For example, there are two separate statutory instruments relating to the north of England, one dated 25 August and one dated 2 September, and they are inconsistent with each other. Can you explain the reason for this confusion? Would it not be much better if—as I thought the Government had already promised—every regulation brought forward was debated at the earliest opportunity, before the Government had a chance to change their mind?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Sir Christopher, you have made your point very well, and my advice is the same as I gave to Sir Desmond: if there are any of these orders that you are opposed to, please feel free to shout “Object”, and I will take the objection and there will be a deferred Division tomorrow. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that in this very fast moving situation that we find ourselves in—we had a statement today—there will be other statements made in this House over the coming days, weeks and months that will give opportunities for Members to question Ministers, Secretaries of State and, indeed, the Prime Minister, as they had the opportunity to do today. I have no hesitation about that happening whatever. I will put the motions on public health now, and then, as I say, I will take any deferred Divisions and objections.
Business without Debate
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 5 to 18 together. Is there an objection to that?
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I take motion 5 on its own, motion 6 on its own and then motions 7 to 18 together?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Okay, we will take motions 5, 6—7, as well—and 8 on their own, and then we will take motions 9 to 18 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 828), dated 4 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Mr Deputy Speaker
Now is the time to shout, “Object”, if Members have an objection.
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 839), dated 6 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 846), dated 7 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 863), dated 14 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).
Mr Deputy Speaker
I tell you what: let us do them all separately, and I think everyone will be pleased and it will be more orderly.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 865), dated 14 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 875), dated 18 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 882), dated 20 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 897), dated 25 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 898), dated 25 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 906), dated 26 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 907), dated 26 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 August, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 921), dated 28 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 September, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 930), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 September, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 September (Standing Order No. 41A). Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I., 2020, No. 931), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 September, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Regulatory Reform
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)),
That the draft Legislative Reform (Renewal of Radio Licences) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Grassroots Arts and Culture: Luton
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Question—if there is no objection—is that the House do now adjourn.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a huge privilege to have my first Adjournment debate on grassroots arts and culture in Luton—my patch and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). Luton has a long history of being a creative town, particularly since the 1800s, when we had a thriving straw plaiting and hat making trade. The wonderful Wardown House Museum and Gallery in Luton South has the most complete headwear and hat industry collection in the world, showcasing industry objects and paper archives relating to the English hat industry. At this stage, it would be remiss of me not to mention and thank the fantastic Museum Makers, a wonderful bunch of volunteers committed to supporting our museum in innovative ways.
Luton is a global town, where more than 130 different languages are spoken. Our super diversity has enabled a wide range of creative opportunities to flourish, which has an amazing impact on people’s day-to-day lives, from food to fashion, from dance to design. Participation in grassroots and community arts activity has played an important role in developing community cohesion, building social capital and enabling local people to lead happy, healthy and prosperous lives.
The importance of the arts should not be understated; when we are not at work, we all, in one way or another, spend our free time consuming art in all its forms. Whether it is TV, radio, magazines, music, art, online content—all of that has been created by people working in the arts and cultural sector. A recent Creative Industries Federation report states that, before the coronavirus pandemic and the attached health restrictions, the creative sector was growing at five times the rate of the wider economy, employing more than 2 million people and contributing £111 billion to the economy—more than the aerospace, automotive, life sciences and oil and gas industries combined.
The Luton arts and culture strategy group, made up of representatives from six of Luton’s key cultural organisations—Luton Borough Council, Revoluton Arts, Tangled Feet, the Culture Trust Luton, the UK Centre for Carnival Arts and the University of Bedfordshire—informs me that the creative industries in Luton contributed £36 million to the local economy in 2018, and leveraged an additional £3.2 million in inward investment in 2019. Luton’s cultural strategy has worked hard to embed arts and the creative sector at the heart of the sustainable transformation of our town, building shared growth through an inclusive local economy, developing skills and jobs and shaping town centre regeneration.
Last year saw Luton’s pilot year of culture, “People Power Passion”, a modern and exciting cultural programme that explored a key historical moment in Luton: the 1919 Peace Day riots, when local people burnt down the town hall in protest at being excluded by the bigwigs running the council after the first world war. We explored that through fantastic arts and cultural events, and while it was inspiring and enjoyable, the investment in this cultural programme, with diverse participants and audiences reflecting the whole of our community, importantly employed 84 artists, trained 13 young people from diverse backgrounds, worked with 400 local participants and engaged 138 volunteers. This participation of our community in large-scale outdoor cultural events builds on our spectacular one-day international carnival, our excellent mela and our vibrant St Patrick’s Day festival. Again, it is at this grassroots level that we see such fantastic work by local creatives, supported so well by local volunteers and charities.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. As well as volunteer organisations, Luton has fantastic events businesses, such as Creative8, which I visited last week. The events industry is vital not just for jobs but for our culture and our economy. Does she agree that, in order to protect all of that, it is vital that it gets specific support during this pandemic?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a superb point. I absolutely agree that such business are vital to our creative and cultural sector and that they need that specific support. I may mention that later in my speech.
Luton’s most famous public artwork, “Beacon”, by Turner Prize-winning, Luton-born Mark Titchner, is a mural that shines out from the side of Luton’s Hat Factory arts centre, and has a simple message that inspires many of us, including budding artists:
“If you can dream it, you must do it.”
However, these dreams are at huge risk of being completely lost, as the global coronavirus pandemic has forced grassroots artists and local arts organisations, such as Next Generation youth theatre, to the brink of devastation. The arts sector was the first to close and will be one of the last to reopen, and this is leaving local creative businesses and freelancers fighting for their future. I am, therefore, deeply concerned that the Government’s response to the crisis fails to recognise the importance of grassroots arts and culture. Although the Government’s £1.57 billion covid-19 arts package is welcome, it is targeted at buildings and institutions, which means that it will fail to reach grassroots precarious workers, freelancers and self-employed entrepreneurs.
The Creative Industries Federation report projects that 122,000 permanent creative workers will be made redundant this year, including 42,000 jobs in the east of England, with the impact being felt twice as hard by freelancers, as 287,000 roles are expected to be terminated in the UK in 2020. The premature decision to end the job retention scheme before the sector has returned to pre-pandemic levels will fail to prevent rising unemployment. This will hamper both the economic recovery and the survival of the sector.
I have been in close contact with the grassroots Luton Creative Forum about the impact of the crisis. Its members tell me that they are fearful for the survival of the arts organisations, as many of them are accruing large debts with no indication of when they will be able to reopen. Pay-as-you-earn freelancers, the newly self-employed and those with less than 50% of their income through self-employment are all suffering, too, as they are excluded from Government support schemes.
My constituent Dan is one of those people excluded from support. Dan is an arts worker who earns a percentage of his income through PAYE and the remainder through self-employment. As Dan is married and his husband was furloughed, he has been unable to access Government support. This has left their joint income at below the minimum wage for one individual. This is a disgrace. With the continued impact of covid and venues not being able to reopen—we heard more about that today—and performances such as the usual Christmas pantomimes having to be cancelled, many partially self-employed workers like Dan, who rely on freelancing to top up their PAYE income, will be forced to take on more debt without targeted Government support.
Luton’s Next Generation youth theatre submitted an application to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport recovery fund. It is great that it has been able to apply, but NGYT is the only organisation in Luton eligible to apply because of the restrictions on the fund, and it has yet to hear whether it has been successful.
The Government’s policies and the recovery fund are failing to meet the needs of grassroots organisations, and if these organisations fail, it will have a hugely damaging impact on the social value provided by the sector in Luton. I urge the Government to be more forward looking and to recognise the long-term social capital that can be provided by the grassroots arts sector.
We also know that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers will have widened owing to the pandemic. Across the country we have heard of some home-schooling difficulties and many families facing digital exclusion. In Luton, this is terrifying because 46% of children live in poverty, according to End Child Poverty.
The creative industries provide the Government with a vehicle to build back better. Research by the Cultural Learning Alliance shows that participation in structured arts activities can increase cognitive abilities by 17%, students from low-income families who take part in arts activities at school are three times more likely to get a degree, and learning through arts and culture can improve attainment in maths and English and develop skills and behaviour that lead children to do better in school.
I urge the Government to consider innovative ways to make up for the educational impact of coronavirus through the benefits of supporting pupils to engage in grassroots arts and culture, building on the work of Luton Cultural Education Partnership, for example. A building back better agenda must recognise the diversity of our grassroots artists. Luton is proud of our community’s diversity, and by creating opportunities to address inequalities among the working class, black, Asian, non-white and ethnic minority communities, we have advanced community cohesion.
However, I am concerned that the Government’s economic schemes may perpetuate inequalities, as those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to suffer more, meaning they are less able to remain in the industry. The Government must make a concerted effort to create pathways for people from working-class, black, Asian, non-white and ethnic minority communities to rise to positions of leadership in arts and culture.
It is therefore disappointing that among the 10 members of the Government’s cultural renewal taskforce, only three are women, two are non-white British and none are independent artists. As the latest Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre report shows, those from privileged backgrounds are more than twice as likely to land a job in a creative occupation. They therefore dominate key decision-making roles in the sector and influence what appears on stage, page and screen.
Young people in Luton, just setting out on their career in the arts, need to see role models that look like them so that they can remain ambitious for their futures and feel confident that they can succeed. We sow the seeds of tomorrow today. What does that mean for the next generation? We are influenced and inspired by those we see in our community.
A number of brilliant creatives have come from Luton, whether it is the musician Paul Young, the actor Colin Salmon of James Bond fame, our national treasure and “Bake Off” winner Nadiya Hussain, or my good friend who sadly passed away a few years ago, Steve Dillon, or New Bloke, known internationally for his superb comic book drawing such as in “The Punisher” and “Preacher”—and I could go on. Not only have those people done much for art and culture; they have shown working-class young people from Luton that they can aspire to a creative career. However, we need to protect grassroots arts support and organisations to give our young people the opportunity to develop their craft and reach the same heights.
If the Government fail to protect the arts sector, not only will there be a short-term contraction of the sector, as actors, singers, artists and writers are forced into other work to survive, but it will have a long-term impact on the skills the sector needs to thrive, and a negative impact on our economic recovery and the renewal of our high streets. The Government have a choice: to empower people and their local community through grassroots arts and culture, or allow rising unemployment and debt and the devastation of a sector that everyone enjoys. To me, the people of Luton South and people across our town and the UK, the choice seems pretty simple.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on introducing her first debate, which she did quite splendidly. This is a very important issue, and I think we are very much in agreement. Our cultural and creative sectors are one of the UK’s greatest success stories, one of our best calling cards and one of those things that really promote the levelling-up agenda. We also agree about the vital role that grassroots arts and culture play in binding local communities together. She is clearly a great champion for the arts in her area and she has really brought it to life this evening, as I am sure other Members will agree.
We know that Luton is a great example of how the power of art can bring communities together. That was incredibly apparent in the spectacular “People Power Passion” celebrations that lasted for two days last July. I very much appreciate her sharing with me the video of that wonderful event in her constituency. As she said, it was really dynamic and brought together people from different age groups and backgrounds not only among the performers, but in the audience. It was a really inspiring event and one that Luton should be super-proud of. Of course I also recognise the devastating impact that covid-19 has had right across our arts and culture, particularly on our grassroots venues that were forced to close in March. It has had a significant impact on businesses, staff, performers and all the many others who make these places such a wonderful part of our success story.
The Government have provided unprecedented support to the arts and culture sectors in response to the crisis and its impact on businesses and individuals. At the very beginning, Arts Council England very quickly delivered an emergency response package of £160 million of Government funding. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware of the many organisations and individuals working in Luton that have benefited from that emergency funding. Those include the brilliant Khayaal Theatre Company, which, as she knows, is a multi-award-winning drama education company, and Little Red Creative Studios, which is a centre for arts with a strong focus on community and accessibility, which I think we would all agree is super-important.
It is our real, sincere hope that this funding has provided a solid source of support at this incredibly challenging time and helped to preserve the creative ecology of the hon. Lady’s area, which she described so brilliantly. Of course, she mentioned—and the House will be aware of it—the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund. We are really clear that we expect the cultural sectors to represent our diverse society in their artistic talent, their workforce and their audiences. As with all Arts Council funding, the culture recovery fund will require all organisations in receipt of funds to demonstrate progress on things such as diversity and outreach over the coming years in return for our investment in their futures. To that end, they will be required to participate in a post-programme evaluation.
So far, grassroots music venues across England have been the first recipients of this funding, and the £3.36 million emergency grassroots music venues fund has been shared among 135 venues across England that applied for support. Those were places that were at imminent risk of collapse as a result of covid. I know that the hon. Lady will be delighted that the Bear Club and the Dallow Centre in Luton have been awarded funding through that scheme. They are much-loved cultural venues that are vital to the local cultural ecosystem, and I hope that will go some way towards helping them to weather the storm and continue to offer exciting and diverse programmes to the city.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that grassroots venues play such an important role in building many successful careers, bringing enjoyment to audiences of all ages and supporting local economies right up and down the country. We know that this is an incredibly challenging time and that many cultural organisations and individuals currently face significant difficulty and uncertainty.
I have met virtually weekly since February, at roundtables, representatives from right across the arts and culture sectors that I represent. I have met people from up and down the country—from all corners—on a very regular basis, just so that I can fully understand and fully get inside the pressures that they are facing. My team in DCMS has been working incredibly hard to try to find solutions that will support this vital sector going forward—ways to try to reopen venues that remain closed and to allow grassroots groups to begin again, obviously all the while maintaining social distancing, as we all need to.
The substantial Government funding package, which, as the hon. Lady knows, represents the largest ever investment in our culture and arts, will be used right across England to help support the performing arts, theatres, museums, heritage, galleries, independent cinemas and live music venues. The Arts Council has been chosen to administer that because it has the expertise to do it and to ensure that we are supporting individuals and venues at this challenging time.
Of course, this is about individuals. It is not just about buildings; it is about the people who bring these places to life. A big priority has been to try to resume cultural activity, albeit in a distanced way, because we know that, more than anything, our brilliant freelancers and individuals want to get back to work and do what they do best. However, we also know that, for some, that has not been possible, so, complementing this funding package, Arts Council England has announced £95 million of additional support for individuals, including freelancers. There will be a further round of its programme Developing your Creative Practice this autumn, which makes approximately £18 million available for individuals who want to develop new creative skills. It is also adding an extra £2 million to the relevant benevolent funds that have been set up across various sectors to support those who are less well supported by these programmes, such as stage managers and technicians.
Arts Council England is our national development agency for creativity and it has a strategic vision for the next 10 years, which I think the hon. Lady will appreciate. It is called Let’s Create and sets out that by 2030, England will be a country in which the creativity of each of us is valued and given the chance to flourish, and where everyone has access to a range of quality cultural experiences. With that in mind, it currently funds over 800 organisations right across the country as part of its national portfolio. That includes grassroots organisations and those that work to engage local communities. There are two in Luton, for example. There is the Culture Trust, supported for its work at the historical Wardown House, with the special exhibitions and the programme of arts that are local community-focused, and then, of course, there is the Luton carnival, which she mentioned. Alongside Arts Council funding, that is also backed by the local council and the UK Centre for Carnival Arts. I know that that is a hugely anticipated annual event, and it was very disappointing that May’s carnival was cancelled, but I am sure that it will come back bigger, stronger and better in 2021.
I am also really supportive of the Arts Council’s Creative People and Places project in Luton, with Revoluton Arts working across the Marsh Farm and Bury Park areas of Luton. They have delivered a number of brilliant creative programmes designed by and with the local community, with the purpose of encouraging more people to engage with the arts.
I hope that I have gone some way to reassure the hon. Lady that the Government truly believe in and recognise the power of art to transform places and, of course, to transform lives. They work to make the arts and the wider culture of museums and libraries an integral part of everyday public life, accessible to all and understood as absolutely essential to not only our national economy, but the health and happiness of society.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Beth Winter |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) | Chris Elmore |
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
James Grundy (Leigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Chris Elmore |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) | Chris Elmore |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) | Stuart Andrew |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) | Mark Spencer |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Owen Paterson North Shropshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) | Rebecca Harris |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Henry Smith (Crawley) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The immigration health charge was introduced in April 2015. Its aim was to ensure that temporary migrants—those with a limited period of leave in the United Kingdom—made a direct contribution to the NHS services available to them during their leave, subject to some specific exemptions.
The charge is currently paid by non-European Economic Area migrants who apply for a visa of more than six months’ duration. It also applies if they wish to extend their stay in the UK for a further defined period, although those who receive indefinite leave to remain do not need to make the payment once they have achieved ILR. The charge is paid up front as part of the immigration application process, and is separate from the visa fee.
From their point of arrival in the UK, a charge payer can access the comprehensive range of services that the NHS provides in broadly the same manner as permanent residents of the UK—that is without having made any prior tax or national insurance contributions. They pay only the charges that a UK resident would pay, such as prescription charges in England. They may also be charged for assisted conception services within England. To date, the charge has raised more than £1.5 billion for the NHS. That income is shared between the health administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, using the formula devised by Lord Barnett, with which Members will be familiar.
Under the new points-based system, which comes into force on 1 January 2021, all migrants to the UK will be treated the same. They will pay the charge if staying for longer than six months, unless exemptions, such as being eligible for the health and care visa, apply. The Government recognise the value and importance of migration to the UK. We welcome talented individuals and the contribution they make to our economy, our communities and our public services. However, it is right that migrants contribute to the comprehensive and high-quality NHS services available to them from the moment they arrive.
This draft order amends schedule 1 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, it will increase the annual amount of the charge to a level broadly reflecting the cost of treating those who pay it. The Department of Health and Social Care has estimated that the cost to the NHS of treating charge payers in England is roughly £625 per person, based on analysis carried out in April 2019 using 2017-18 NHS England data. However, to support the administration of the charge, the new level is set at £624 to make it easier to divide.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In reaching the figure that the Government now bring forward, what account has been taken, especially for those renewing their visas, of the tax and national insurance contribution made by those working in our economy?
Kevin Foster
To be clear, the eligibility for the charge is based on the immigration status, rather than what tax or national insurance people have paid. We were clear in our manifesto, which was firmly endorsed in the December general election, that we would base it on the average cost of treating charge payers. Of course, when they come to achieve indefinite leave to remain, they are no longer liable to pay the charge. As I say, it is subject to the £1 discount, because £624 is more divisible than £625.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
A quick question: is the working for the £624 estimate available anywhere? I cannot see where to find it.
Kevin Foster
My understanding is that that has been published, but I will certainly be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee with more details about how the DHSC arrived at that figure.
Students, dependants of students and youth mobility scheme applicants will continue to pay the discounted rate, which will increase from £300 to £470 per person. The Government are aware that the charge has a greater financial impact on family groups than on individual applicants. To support families, therefore, the charge for children under 18 at the date of application will also be set at £470, in line with the discounted rate set for students and the youth mobility scheme.
In specifying the new amount of the charge, the Government have considered a range of health services available without charge to those given immigration permission to be within the United Kingdom, and, as I have touched on already, have considered the cost to the NHS across the four nations of treating those who pay the charge. Also considered is the valuable contribution that migrants make to our economy and the need to ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for global talent.
I turn to the exemption for tier 2 health and care visa applicants. On 21 May, the Prime Minister asked the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to work together to exempt NHS and health and care workers from the immigration health charge. Consequently, this order amends schedule 2 to the principal order to provide exemption for tier 2 (general) health and care visa applicants and their dependants.
The tier 2 (general) health and care visa was launched on 4 August, and a large number of applications were received and permissions granted. It is a fast-track visa offer with a reduced application fee for eligible health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health workers. It covers not only people working in the NHS directly but those working for organisations commissioned by the NHS to provide essential services and those in the relevant professions who work in the adult social care sector, which is the basis of their application and their visa. Until a formal exemption is in place for that group, the Secretary of State has waived the requirement for them to pay the health charge.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being generous with his time. Those who are not included in that exemption include people working in the social care sector and non-medical NHS staff such as porters and cleaners. Why is their contribution not valued in the same way?
Kevin Foster
It might be helpful to explain how the current system of immigration works in the United Kingdom. At the moment, it is not possible to get a visa under the rest of the world system for some of the jobs that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Those coming to the United Kingdom to work in those roles do so under either the European economic area free movement rights, which continue until 31 December, when immigration permission and the immigration health surcharge will not be relevant, or they will have come to the UK with permission—as a dependant of a skilled worker, for example, although not a health and care worker, who will be covered by the visa offer—and have a more generic right of work in the United Kingdom that is not tied to working within the health and social care sector. Those who come with a specific job offer under the health and care visa, however, go straight into employment. That is why we will look at the refund scheme. Colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are working on that.
As we bring in the new system on 1 January, a much wider range of skills will be recognised, including, for example, senior care workers who, at the moment, cannot get a visa under tier 2, but will qualify under the new points-based system from 1 January. Again, we will look to expand who will be eligible in the health and care sector. People will not be tied to a specific job offer. There will be a general permission to work in the United Kingdom’s economy in any role. Again, we need to make sure that we have a route to support the NHS and social care, not a way to avoid an immigration charge.
Tier 2 migrants who have paid the health charge on or after 31 March 2020, but who would have qualified for the new health and care visa had it been in operation, are being refunded. Those who work in the NHS and wider health and care sector and who paid the charge on or after 31 March, but who do not qualify for the health and care visa and have a general ability to work in the UK, which I have just touched on, may also be eligible for reimbursement of the charge that they paid.
On 15 July, the Minister for Health announced that the reimbursement would be paid in arrears of six-month increments, and the scheme will be launched next month. More details on the scheme will be published by the Department of Health and Social Care shortly. Given the queries that have been raised, I am sure it will be read with interest by members of the Committee.
Those who move to a new country expect to pay towards healthcare. In many countries they are required to do so by securing private health insurance or by direct charges when they become unwell or need to access healthcare, yet here in the UK they can access our fantastic NHS, if necessary, from when they arrive.
The health charge is designed to benefit the NHS and support its long-term sustainability. Those NHS and other health and social care workers who are granted visas to work specifically in those roles are doing that through the important contribution that they make in their work. They are exempt from the payment, and those who contribute to the work once they have arrived, but whose right to work in the UK is not tied to the sector, will have the payment reimbursed. However, it is only right and fair that people arriving in the UK to work in non-healthcare roles should pay towards the extensive and high quality range of NHS services available to them in the United Kingdom until they are permanently settled here in the UK.
That is a point that the electorate agreed with in the December general election. When we debated the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, we had the debate that we expected. The Scottish National party set out its principled objection to the charge, and I outlined why the Government believe it is right. We heard from others that they were making their minds up on what the policy should be. In commending the orders to the Committee, I look forward to getting more clarity about whether the approach is the right one—yes or no.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you ever so much, Mr Robertson; it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister, in the main, for his opening remarks on the statutory instrument. It will not come as a surprise to him that we shall oppose it. Before I discuss the reasons for that, I shall take the opportunity to flag up some concerns about version control. Because of the previous publication of the SI on 19 March, superseded by the later one taking account of the health and care visa, I think I have seen two versions of the SI and, if I am not mistaken, three versions of the accompanying explanatory memorandum.
I know how hard the Table Office staff and the Clerks work, but those documents have been circulated in various combinations, and even this morning when I asked for the latest copy at the Table Office I was provided with the version published on 19 March. I just ask the Minister to consider ensuring that the Opposition have all the information we need to do our jobs properly. It would certainly assist us in the constructive dialogue that we need to engage in on important measures such as this order.
I turn to the order itself. We cannot support the increase in the health surcharge at a time when access to healthcare is essential, in the middle of a global public health crisis. We need fewer barriers to healthcare, not more. That is particularly true in relation to those already in the UK. Also, the detail of the Government’s proposals to exempt health and care workers from the fees falls a long way short of what was promised.
The Minister referred to the discussion in the Committee that considered the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill; he and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, will no doubt recall much of the discussion with great fondness. However, to keep tightly to debating the SI, there is a theme of measures that do not reflect the spirit of “clap for key workers” and the genuine gratitude that we feel to those on the frontline. Many of those we are landing with an increased bill will be in lower-paid but essential work as part of those efforts.
We welcome the intention in the SI to exempt from the fees those who plan to come to the UK on the future health and care visa. We passionately made that case, and the fees were described as “appalling, immoral and monstrous” by Lord Patten, a former Conservative party chairman.
The explanatory memorandum states:
“There has been strong support for those working in health and social care to be exempt from paying the Immigration Health Charge.”
That is precisely the point—that for those currently working in health and social care the SI does little to remove the burden of the health surcharge fees. It fails to offer automatic exemption from the immigration health surcharge for migrants currently working in health and social care. Migrant workers still have to pay it, and have been promised a refund only down the line. We hear about significant variations in how long it takes people to get their money back from the Home Office. Some doctors I have spoken to have stated that they have had reimbursements only after sending multiple emails to the Home Office, many of which went ignored.
The refund approach is an excessively bureaucratic measure that illustrates the disconnect between policy makers and health workers. Like everyone working in healthcare right now, migrant workers continue to face those stresses on a daily basis while their own lives are on the line to help us to combat coronavirus. Within the care sector in particular, many of those key workers are on salaries that do not begin to reflect the immense contribution and value that their work provides for us all. The statutory instrument should be clear that all those working in health and social care are exempt and simply do not have to pay the fee.
The Prime Minister’s pledge on 21 May to abolish the immigration health surcharge for health and care staff as soon as possible was met with excitement and praise. Yet the prospect for many migrant workers of still having to pay an increased fee and face the exact same financial difficulties that they were experiencing before the announcement seems an incredibly unfair and unnecessary way of going about it. I will share the experiences of some real-life migrant NHS and social care workers to make that very point.
Mary is a healthcare assistant and a Unison member from Nigeria. She and her care worker husband work all hours possible to provide for their three children, aged 13, nine and three. Owing to their immigration status and having no recourse to public funds, the family is not eligible for any state aid, free school meals or child benefit. Despite that, Mary, her husband and her three children have all had to pay the immigration health surcharge individually and have not been told by the Home Office when they will receive a refund. When the increase comes into effect, that will only get worse for families such as Mary’s.
Helen is a nurse from the Philippines, working on a tier 2 visa. She came to the country two and half years ago on a hospital-sponsored three-year visa. She is currently on maternity leave expecting her second child, and is faced with the burden of paying the visa charges for herself, her husband and their children, including for the baby once it is born. The family have had to downsize to a one-bedroom property to be able to afford to pay the immigration health surcharge, despite the Prime Minister’s announcement. Like many, the family also has no recourse to public funds, so receives no free school meals or child benefit.
I have already raised in the House the story of Dr Ahmed Bani Sadara, originally from Pakistan. He had to pay the surcharge for his new-born daughter twice in a year—first, when she was born and again when he changed his role six months later within the NHS, in addition to paying the surcharge again for himself and his wife. We implore the Government to listen to those individual case studies and to devise a solution that offers immediate exemption of the immigration health surcharge for all migrants working in the NHS and social care.
The absence of such an exemption is just one reason why we cannot sign off on the increases. The current initiative does not work for people, and I am sceptical about whether it works for the Government or the Home Office either. Can the Minister share a sense of the administrative cost to the Home Office of issuing refunds in that way? Beyond the delivery of the exemption, we are concerned that the eligibility does not reflect the spirit of what was promised. All staff within the NHS and social care sector have played a front-line role during this crisis. Everyone from specialists in intensive care, allied health professionals, nurses and hospital porters have collectively pulled together, and as such should all be recognised for their herculean efforts.
Labour believes that every migrant worker in the NHS and social care sector should be exempt from the immigration health surcharge; however, on 15 July, the Minister told the House that only those who qualify for the new tier 2 visa will be eligible for automatic exemption, and that other health and care workers would qualify for the refund only if they had worked in the NHS for six months. The Government have failed to clarify how the refund will work in practice.
I heard the Minister say that colleagues in the Health team will provide some clarity, but it would have been incredibly valuable to have had that prior to discussing the SI. Paragraph 7.11 of its most recent explanatory memorandum merely promises the publication of another reimbursement scheme in due course. That is clearly a million miles away from what the Prime Minister promised, so we hope that the Minister can be clear with the Committee when that will be published and what the mechanism will be for delivering it.
The Minister will be aware that we face a clinical skills shortage in the NHS. Until there is a successful domestic training programme, that shortage cannot be resolved without migrant medical staff. Yet Government policy still acts punitively towards those vital workers. The UK has a world-beating system, I am afraid, for discouraging skilled migrants, which in turn threatens to compromise the quality of our public services at the time when we need them the most. The immigration specialist law firm Fragomen carried out international comparison analysis and found that out of 119 countries only the UK required an advance yearly fee payable upfront in one lump sum to the relevant country’s Government, as the SI does.
We place a significant financial burden on applicants, due to the payment of lump sums such as the immigration health surcharge. The Government should look to abate the up-front costs and could do so by making it possible for the IHS to be paid in yearly or six-month increments, rather than in one lump sum at the outset; again, that applies particularly to those who are already here.
Beyond the implications for healthcare workers, Labour rejects the proposed increase in the IHS from £400 to £624, and the rise from £300 to £470 for the discounted rates more broadly. Right now, people are in more vulnerable and precarious work than ever before—people with families, who could be key workers, who have come to the UK for good jobs, worked hard and paid into the system face uncertainty in the workplace, as almost everyone does right now.
To ramp up the costs for those who are already here, who might be changing jobs and who have to apply for a change of sponsor so that they have to pay the fees again, whether or not they will be reimbursed, and find the extra money to access healthcare, when the financial outlook is more precarious than it has ever been, is simply not the responsible thing to do in the middle of a public health crisis. It is wrong to increase the surcharge during this time, and it will further increase the financial burdens faced by lower paid migrants. Let us remind ourselves that they could include those working on farms and in shops, keeping shelves stocked and food on our tables.
This statutory instrument represents one step forward and two steps back for migrants in the UK. We agree that future tier 2 visa applicants should be exempt from the immigration health surcharge, yet the decision to make current healthcare and social care workers pay the fee and be refunded down the line is illogical and harmful, with some of them still missing out all together in the long term.
We would also welcome much greater clarity from the Government on who will be eligible in the future for exemption, and we make the case once again that the exemption must be extended to all healthcare and social care workers, as well as their dependents. We oppose the rise in the immigration health surcharge for all other migrants to the UK. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor stated that we are all in this together, but measures such as this SI suggest that some people are more in it than others. As a consequence, Labour will vote against it.
The Minister referred to some of the discussions that we had at the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. He knows that what I said then was that Labour is engaging in a huge amount of work to make sure that we have a radically different approach to immigration in the future. Of course, there are cost implications, and we are not in a position just yet to outline all of them the Minister, but he knows that work is under way and I look forward to sharing the results of it with him in the not-too-distant future.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Robertson; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I also thank the Minister for his introduction to the debate.
I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Halifax regarding the miscommunication about which statutory instrument we are debating today, because there was a chance that if I had missed an email this morning, I would have come here with absolutely no idea at all that we were discussing the healthcare workforce. Such things do not happen very often, but it is important to try to make sure that we learn from them and put in place processes to stop them from happening again.
Nevertheless, we are where we are, and of course I absolutely agree that NHS workers should not pay the health surcharge. It is welcome that the Government have moved some way towards what campaigners and the Opposition have been saying in that regard. However, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Halifax, there is still further to go. We also welcome the fact that in this draft SI, children will be charged at a reduced rate—basically a frozen rate—instead of the full increased rate. If the Government were to bring back an SI with those features alone, then fine. However, if my amendments to the Immigration Bill had been accepted, no NHS worker would have to pay the health charge and no child would have to pay the health charge, because it would have been scrapped all together. So no teacher, firefighter, shop worker or distribution worker would have had to pay it either.
That is because, as the Minister alluded to, we as a party object much more fundamentally to this monstrous fee. We object on a point of principle, we continue to oppose the charge and we certainly oppose the 50% increase that is being pushed through today. An exemption for one group of workers cannot be justified by whacking thousands of pounds in extra charges on all sorts of other workers. I do not need to repeat everything I said on this topic during the passage of the Immigration Bill, but in short we regard this surcharge not as a charge at all, but as a double tax. It is also a poll tax, and an extortionate one at that.
The fact that this charge is a double tax is confirmed absolutely by the impact assessment that all Members received with their other papers. Deep in annex four, there is reference to the many thousands of pounds that the migrants subject to this charge contribute in the form of direct and indirect taxes every year, and those thousands of pounds dwarf the estimate of the cost of providing them with NHS care that the Minister referred to. That same impact assessment says, in its “key assumptions” section,
“This analysis looks at the impact on the health costs of migration, without considering the scope to offset these costs with fiscal revenue raised from migrants (e.g. income tax).”
In short, we are handing out a bill for the average cost of treating people on the NHS, but not giving those people any credit for the taxes they pay. Anyone wanting to apply a degree of fairness would take into account the tax that people are paying.
The question then arises: why are the Government sticking to just an NHS charge? I share the views of the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, who told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he did not think that made sense. Why not have a policing surcharge, a transport surcharge and an education surcharge, so that migrants are contributing to all those services as well? The answer, of course, is that they already pay tax for those services. Exactly the same principle should apply in relation to the NHS. This charge is a poll tax, because an international celebrity coming to work here on a multi-million-pound salary will make precisely the same contribution as a junior doctor coming to shore up the NHS, and it is particularly brutal in its application to families for whom Britain is home and who get put on the 10-year road to settlement. Kids who have known no other country will have this fee levied against them year after year for a decade.
Finally, I have a couple of requests of the Minister. I say again that we urgently need to see analysis of the impact of extending the surcharge to EEA nationals. We should have seen that when the immigration Bill was being debated, and we certainly should have seen it before today, before we started discussing increasing the fee that the Government want to extend to EEA nationals. As of next year, if a business in my constituency wants to employ somebody from Germany or Italy, they are going to have to pay thousands of pounds in health fees to recruit that person, whereas a business in Ireland or Denmark will not have to pay a penny. That is going to have a profound effect on my constituents, never mind the people of Northern Ireland. Businesses there will have rival companies just a few miles down the road that will be able to recruit people from all across Europe free of charge, yet we are going to be levying fees of thousands and thousands of pounds on those people. We need to know what assessment the Government have made of the impact of that.
The Minister alluded today, as he has before, to the argument that the surcharge is comparable to the cost of health insurance in other countries. Of course, it is fair that people going to countries with insurance-based systems pay in the same way as citizens of those countries, in a way that is related to their income. However, as the hon. Member for Halifax has also pointed out, I have seen absolutely no evidence that they are charged anything that remotely resembles the UK double poll tax on top. Again, I rather suspect that apples are being compared with oranges. The impact assessment also refers to “internal analysis by DHSC” to justify the assertion of competitiveness; I would like to see that too. Where is this DHSC research into how this operates in other countries? In short, there is a lack of fairness and a lack of transparency behind these proposals, and we in the Scottish National party continue to oppose them.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. First of all, I associate myself with a number of the arguments that we have heard, particularly those made by the hon. Member for Halifax about the inappropriateness of bringing forward an increase in this charge at this time and in the circumstances of the global covid pandemic. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East towards the end of his speech, the lack of proper underpinning analysis to justify the figure is something that should make us all pause for consideration. It is not good enough for the Government to pluck a figure out of the air, as seems to have been the case here, and bring it forward in the way they have done.
The Minister perhaps has a fair point when he says that anybody stepping off a boat or a plane has immediate access to care on the NHS, but the longer that person is here, the less relevant that case becomes. Of course, as the Minister himself made clear in his contribution, this charge applies to not only those who are just arriving, but those who have been here for a number of years and are seeking to renew their visas. I am afraid that it also conforms to a pattern that we have seen before, whereby this Government seem to view visa application fees as some sort of extra cash cow—another little bonus for the Treasury. The actual application processing cost of a tier 2 visa is something in the region of £317, but the fee paid by the person making the application is £704, so we see that the Government are creaming off something in excess of 50% of the fee as pure profit—nice work if you can get it, I am inclined to say.
Let me put that into the broader context of the contribution made by those who, having come here, work in our economy. Let us be honest, that is why most people come to this country: to work and to contribute to our community. The work by Oxford Economics for the Migration Advisory Committee concluded that the average non-European economic area national made a net fiscal contribution of £310 per annum more than that of the average UK adult. The same analysis states that the net contribution of an EEA national is some £1,940 greater than that of the average UK adult. That goes to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—I wish he had a shorter constituency name—about the lack of underlying analysis and justification for the figure that the Government have brought to the Committee in support of the provisions before us.
Then of course there is the question of those who are exempt from paying the health surcharge. As I said to the Minister, it is of course welcome that healthcare and associated professionals are exempt. I am afraid, however, that it bears no scrutiny to say that when somebody works in the NHS as a cleaner or a porter—doing critical and, sadly, as we have seen in recent months, quite dangerous work—it is somehow too difficult to work out whether they work in our hospitals and care homes. The concessions that have been made are welcome, but it is almost as if they are given grudgingly. Really, I think that all those who contribute to our NHS and its success should be valued more highly than that, and are entitled to expect better for the contribution that they make to our NHS and our community in both the work they do and the financial contributions they make.
We heard the Minister talk about the rebate system, but yet again, it is being offered without any clear timeline. When will we see the details of that rebate system? Again, tabling an instrument such as this without having that detail is, I would suggest, a case of putting the cart before the horse.
The instrument is part of a bigger picture. About one in seven people who work in the NHS are foreign nationals —some 36,000 doctors, 59,000 nurses and 40,000 clinical support staff. Meanwhile, one in six of the adult social care workforce is a foreign national; that is 249,000 care workers who are not given the benefit of the exemption given to the professionals in the NHS. That is the number of people who will be affected by this approach to migration.
The instrument tabled by the Government, although it is being considered by the Committee and done through delegated legislation, is not a matter of detail or a minor accounting adjustment. It reflects a quite fundamentally objectionable principle that states that the people who help us most seem to be valued least. That is why, in the event that the Committee divides today, I shall oppose the instrument.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the three previous speakers, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, because I believe that, overall, immigration surcharges are based on a series of falsehoods.
First, the statutory instrument claims that the order will increase the amount of charge to cover the full cost of use. As a flat charge on all visitors or temporary residents, it is not at all related to use. Some might require no NHS support at all, while others might require substantial NHS assistance, and increasing the surcharge during a pandemic is potentially a disastrous false economy, so I do not know why we are discussing this.
This statutory instrument is also premised on the false notion that the NHS is overwhelmed by health tourism. Despite various Ministers making that claim over a number of different years, they have yet to provide the evidence. On the contrary, according to the Department of Health’s own estimates, the sums are tiny in relation to the overall health budget, which I believe is £140 billion in England alone. In the past few months, the Government have wasted millions on a failed tracing system, faulty face masks, unsafe testing kits and useless antibody tests.
Despite the false claims, it should be clear that that is just another part of the hostile environment policy which, in this case, is used to support the false assertion that the severe problem in the NHS is due to the demand from overseas visitors, when that is simply not so. The truth is that the NHS is underfunded, has health staff shortages—something that could be resolved by allowing more migrants to work in the NHS—and has been starved of funds by outsourcing and privatisation. Those are all Government policies, so I will oppose this statutory instrument.
Kevin Foster
I thank the members of the Committee for their valuable contributions.
I will start with the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I was pleased to hear him say that it was a fair point that, when someone steps off a plane, they need to have access to the NHS if they have the type of immigration permissions that we are discussing today. That is why the measure was introduced under the coalition. To reassure him, given his comments on wider charges in the immigration system, the fundamental charging criteria are still pretty much what they were back in 2014, when agreed during his own time in Government.
To come on to some of the wider points made, the first by both the SNP and Labour spokespersons, any confusion in the supply of the explanatory memorandum is concerning. I am certainly more than happy to pick that up through my private office. When we lay statutory instruments, I am also more than happy to ensure that copies of relevant documents are sent directly to hon. Members. I am conscious that an important part of scrutiny is to have those documents easily to hand, without having to rely on the Table Office. I will ensure that that is actioned.
I will also clarify a couple of comments made on the pandemic by the hon. Member for Halifax. To be clear, anyone who needs treatment for covid-19 may approach the NHS for it. Across the United Kingdom, there is no charge for that, and whether people are able to access treatment does not in any way relate to their immigration status. As I said in the Chamber in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), information supplied to the NHS will not immediately be supplied to immigration enforcement. Our priority is to ensure that people feel they can approach the NHS in this country if they have symptoms of covid-19, regardless of whether they have lawful immigration status or are undocumented. I wish to very clear on that point.
I will go into some of the other issues raised. To be fair to the hon. Member for Halifax, she was specific in her wording, probably for a reason, that other countries do not require payment to the “relevant Government”—the exact words used. That rather misses the point about the situation in other countries. We all know the situation in the United States of America, where a payment may not be required to the US Government, but in reality people take a risk with their own health and of potentially crippling medical bills if they do not have medical insurance. Thankfully, we do not have such surcharges for people living here in the United Kingdom, and never will. Talking about no payment to the Government also misses the fact that to get the type of cover provided by the NHS here, people have to spend a significant amount of money. That is true in other countries, such as New Zealand, which requires foreign fee-paying students to hold acceptable medical and travel insurance as a condition of their visa. They do not have to pay the Government, but they do have to buy something specific. In addition, they still have to pay for GP practice consultations, which would be free here in the UK.
Holly Lynch
That was a series of points about the fact that the way we ask people to make that fee—up front, in advance and in one lump sum to the Government—is very unusual. Even comparing it with insurance, which is slightly different but it is the point that the Minister is making, I would imagine there would be different payment plans to make it a bit more manageable for people if that financial contribution, up front and in one go, is a challenge and a barrier to healthcare. Can he reflect on that point?
Kevin Foster
Again, some of those costs are up front, then followed up by having to pay for healthcare treatment. One thing that is unusual and which is really good about this country is the level of free-at-point-of-need healthcare that we have across the nations of the United Kingdom, dating back to 1948 and the introduction of the NHS. That is not replicated in many other countries, where there is either a social insurance system or there is still co-payment for many areas.
Ireland was another example given and we have had a quick look at the position for someone who has moved there. In my understanding, there is a charge levied more generally, not just on migrants, where people pay €100 if they attend an accident and emergency department without a referral letter from the doctor. Again, we do not have those sorts of charges here and neither will we look to have them. Similarly, there can be charges for being an in-patient in a hospital in Ireland. Again, that would not apply to someone here who has paid the immigration health surcharge or who has indefinite leave to remain and therefore is exempt.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to have this debate, but I will say two things. First, can we see the analysis that I referred to earlier that the Department of Health and Social Care has done on this point so we can have the debate in full knowledge of that? Secondly, in terms of Ireland, migrants there are being charged on the same basis as local residents, but here people are being asked to pay the tax—as local residents do—and the dreamed-up £600-odd fee, for which we have are yet to understand the full basis.
Kevin Foster
We are happy to supply how we come to the costings. As we said in our manifesto, it is the cost of treatment to those who are covered by the health charge element. I think the situation is different. We rightly have got a social contract in the UK that those of us who are long-term residents or who have been here for a period of time pay taxes year in, year out. That is not dependent on whether we have been ill and not dependent on how much we have needed to use the NHS; we all pay that fee.
It is not unreasonable to ask those who have moved to the United Kingdom specifically at a point in their lives, who will not necessarily have that long-term payment of tax and other contributions, to make their contribution for the period, as some of them will have limited leave. Then, when they make the commitment that indefinite leave to remain represents—that is, permanent settlement—they become exempt. That has been the basis.
I appreciate that the Scottish National party has a very different view on this particular area despite its having produced £120 million of funding for Scotland’s NHS in its period of operation—and it will continue to produce income for Scotland’s NHS. We believe it is the right approach that when someone has just arrived, they make a payment that reflects the fact that others who have been here—permanent UK residents—have made contributions over a period of time, on average.
I heard the comments by the hon. Member for Streatham. The basis is that some need it more or less. That is, of course, the basis of how the NHS, which is taxpayer funded, works. We would not want to link that to how much someone uses the NHS, although I accept that in other countries people face direct healthcare charges, including those who are permanent residents and sometimes those who may not have built up the level of social insurance payments of a longer-term resident. As for the expression that it is unique to a certain Government, it is certainly not unique for those migrating to other nations to face either up-front charges or the prospect, if they become unwell, of having to find money to fund their treatment. That is a prospect they will not be facing here in the United Kingdom.
As for further details on reimbursement, I mentioned in my speech that the Department of Health and Social Care intends to launch that in October and to publish the figures shortly. That is for those who are not automatically exempt as a result of qualifying for the health and care visa and, similarly, those who are applying to renew their migration status.
The hon. Member for Halifax used the example of how a doctor can seek to apply—if they are on tier 2 —for the health and care visa if their migration status is coming up for renewal. She also made points about when sponsors change. To reassure her, we are looking to make some changes under the new points-based system from 1 January to make it slightly easier for people to move between sponsors if they are doing fundamentally the same job. That also partly responds to legitimate concerns about ensuring that employees are not wholly tied to one employer.
Obviously, the NHS overall is a unique organisation, but if someone is absolutely tied to one employer for their migration status in the United Kingdom, that can present some challenges. We will make it slightly easier for people here in the United Kingdom to move between employers, subject to the workplace role still being fundamentally what their status was based on.
The debate has been a useful opportunity to scrutinise the order. It sounds like, in the Labour party’s immigration policy, I have some Christmas reading to look forward to from the hon. Member for Halifax. I very much recommend that she bases it on the policies the Government put out on 13 July. There will be further details about the new points-based system, which will be a very firm base. The hon. Member for Streatham has her view on whether the immigration health surcharge should in principle be part of the immigration system in the future, and I look forward to hearing the view of the hon. Member for Halifax.
The order is the right approach, based firmly on our manifesto commitment and on reassuring the UK taxpayer that, as a whole, our migration system exists to support our health services and make a contribution to them. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NO. 2) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2020
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS) (RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING OF GATHERINGS AND AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
If Members speak in the debate, will they please email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk? The Hansard reporters can then turn your contribution into something erudite—which I am sure it will be anyway.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 863).
The Chair
With this, we will consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 907).
Edward Argar
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Huq. I will start by summarising the changes to the regulations. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020, which I will refer to as the national regulations for simplicity, were laid on 4 July. There have been five changes to the national regulations, the first of which was debated and approved in both Houses before the summer recess. The second amendment was debated by a Delegated Legislation Committee on 14 September, and today’s debate focuses on the third and fourth amendments to the regulations. As the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), set out last week in a Delegated Legislation Committee, the second and third amendments to the national regulations continued to ease business closure restrictions.
To briefly recap, the second amendment to the regulations permitted the reopening of the following businesses and venues from 25 July: indoor swimming pools, including water parks; indoor fitness and dance studios; and indoor gyms, sports courts and associated facilities. Alongside the changes, the Government produced supporting guidance advising that the most high-risk activities within those businesses and venues, such as saunas and steam rooms, should not reopen at that time.
The third amendment to the national regulations allowed the following venues to open from 15 August: bowling alleys; indoor skating rinks; indoor play areas, including soft play areas, with several adjustments advised in guidance, such as the closure and removal of ball pits; casinos; and exhibition halls and conference centres, with guidance advising that this was only to enable Government-endorsed pilots at that time.
Alongside the regulatory changes are a series of non-legislative changes to allow close contact services, including treatments on the face, to resume. They include allowing socially distanced and outdoor performances to take place, pilots for large crowds in sports stadiums and business events, and the relaxation of guidance on wedding and civil partnerships to allow receptions of up to 30 people.
As I have set out, those amendments opened businesses and venues that had been required to close, with covid-secure guidance developed with industry and with medical advice to ensure they opened in a safe way. Nationally, this has meant that only nightclubs, dancehalls, disco- theques, sexual entertainment venues and hostess bars are required to remain closed. Such venues are considered to pose a high risk of transmission because of the close proximity of members of staff and customers, so they need to remain closed for now in line with the current scientific advice to control the virus.
Although we were able to successively ease business restrictions over the summer, we also now better understand how the infection is transmitted and the role of social activity within this. Between the end of June and the middle of August, the Metropolitan police responded to more than 1,000 unlicensed events. Over one of the weekends in that period, the force received information about more than 200 illegal gatherings across the city. That is why the Government have acted quickly to strengthen the enforcement and restrictiveness of social distancing measures against the backdrop of a slow but steady increase in infection levels nationally. I note, at this point, that although we are debating regulations that came into force earlier this summer, which therefore pertain to the circumstances at the time, we are all cognisant of the chief medical officer’s and the chief scientific adviser’s recent comments and we will see what the Prime Minister announces later today.
The fourth amendment to the national regulations that came into force on 28 August created a new offence of holding or being involved in the holding of an illegal gathering of more than 30 people, giving the police the power to issue a fixed penalty notice of up to £10,000. The fixed penalty notice level has been set at such a significant amount to reflect the seriousness of organising or facilitating an unlawful gathering. It was introduced because this is considered to be particularly egregious behaviour that carries a high risk of transmission of the virus by proactively gathering a large group in breach of the restrictions under the regulations. We hold the view that that level of fine is justified on the basis that this is a narrow offence that targets those holding an illegal gathering. The prospect of an accidental breach of the restrictions is highly unlikely, given it requires an active decision to organise a large event. The regulations set our how large gatherings can be lawfully organised.
I suspect that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) will raise the issue of the use of emergency powers and how the decisions are made. If he does, I look forward to responding as fully as I can in my closing remarks. We believe that it is right that we use the emergency power to amend the regulations so we can respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by the coronavirus. We also recognise that the national regulations have caused real disruption to people’s lives and businesses, placing restrictions on who people can see, what they can do and where they can work. Just as the Secretary of State has the legal obligation to protect public health, he is also obliged to ease restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so for businesses and others. Indeed, the Government continue to pay close attention to the measures, assessing them to ensure they continue to be necessary and proportionate and taking other steps where they are deemed appropriate. The regulations set out that a review of the restrictions must take place within 28 days. However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also keeps their necessity under constant consideration between review points.
The question to be considered is whether the restrictions or requirements contained in the regulations remain necessary for the regulations’ public health purposes. Each restriction must be judged by reference to its continuing necessity as the pandemic develops and based on the information available at each stage about the effectiveness and impact of the measures. That is what we are seeing at the moment with the recent updates from the Prime Minister and the chief scientific adviser. We will continue to use the best available scientific advice along with consideration of the most up-to-date data available at the time to inform decisions, and central to that continues to be a robust assessment of the rate of transmission and infection.
The Government have also undertaken significant wider analysis and evaluation of the national regulations, including consideration of economic impact, the level of compliance with the measures, the amount of enforcement needed and the impact felt by local authorities. Understanding the full impacts of the regulations is key to continuing to improve our approach to controlling the virus and we must remember we have both to protect the health of our nation and to balance that with protecting its economic health. I believe that this shows the Government’s commitment to ensuring restrictions are only in place for as long as necessary, while also showing the evolution in our understanding and approach to tackling the virus.
Throughout, the Government have moved with speed to ensure action is taken rapidly to address the needs of the population as the pandemic continues. Over the summer recess, we combined that with tightening restrictions in areas with local outbreaks, alongside the easing of some restrictions nationally. That is an important balance to be struck and we have given local authorities powers to act quickly in response to local outbreaks by closing specific premises, shutting public outdoor spaces and cancelling events. I take the opportunity here in the Committee to pay tribute to the work of local authorities and local councillors up and down this country, working in partnership with the NHS, social care providers and public health officials to protect their populations and do what is right for their areas. I am extremely grateful to them for their service, as I suspect all Members are.
In that context, we asked councils to develop dedicated local outbreak plans, giving them £300 million of additional funding to support that, and published the contain framework, providing further guidance on managing local outbreaks. Where regulations have been required, the Government have worked with local partners to develop tailored and proportionate restrictions based on the best scientific evidence available, varying from a single factory to, indeed, an entire region such as the north of England. We have seen similar approaches adopted in the devolved Administrations, including recently in Wales.
Last week, colleagues will have seen new restrictions were mandated in areas of the north-east, requiring, among other things, the closure of a range of businesses linked to the night-time economy. Such interventions continue to be underpinned by scientific evidence and local data.
On Monday 14 September, colleagues will have seen the rule of six come into effect. This change brought the gathering policy from guidance into regulation, meaning that people can only gather in groups of six. That applies both indoors and outdoors. Single households or support bubbles of more than six are still able to gather together, and there are a small number of exceptions such as for work, school, weddings and organised activities. As the Prime Minister recently announced, these measures are not a second national lockdown but are aimed at preventing the need for one.
Colleagues will also have seen that on Friday we laid new regulations for businesses, which make a number of behaviours and activities already encouraged through guidance legally mandated under the Public Health Act (Control of Disease) Act 1984. If businesses and venues do not adhere to the regulations, they could be issued with a fixed penalty notice to ensure strict enforcement of measures designed to keep customers and workers safe from the virus. We will continue to seek to ensure timely scrutiny of these changes.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not only for their valuable contributions to these debates but for their continued scrutiny of the Government’s response to the crisis. We continue to learn and adapt our approach to ensure that these and all restrictions remain a proportionate and necessary public health response to the threat of coronavirus. As I have said before, it is thanks to local health officials, local councils and others that we continue to bear down on the virus, but there is clearly more to do. In this context, it would be remiss of me not to thank the public, who have made huge sacrifices to try to beat the virus. It is important that we recognise the burden that places on individuals, businesses and families and that we continue to do only what is absolutely essential to tackle this public health challenge.
I believe we have met the bar set for us in such debates thus far that the regulations are proportionate and necessary. I look forward to constructive challenge, as always, from the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the first time, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks and his service over the last seven-plus months. Whatever we think about coronavirus and whatever our views on where to go next, Ministers have clearly been working at very high frequency for a long time, which would tire anyone. We are grateful for that important public service.
It is risky business, Dr Huq, to be on your feet speaking at the same time as your party’s leader makes their speech to conference. In fact, it might the first time that I or any colleague would be so brave. I hope the Whip will get me out of any trouble, should it be seen that I am trying to elevate my standing prematurely. I apologise to the hon. Members for Erewash and for St Austell and Newquay, because they may have heard some of this speech 18 hours ago, but they will see just how many of my jokes really are ad hoc rather than just delivered with aplomb.
I will start, as I did yesterday, with a couple of things about opposition in the time of covid—like love in the time of cholera, or the other way around. We have set out our stall throughout the pandemic to be a supportive Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about that on Sunday and, as I said yesterday, some of the replies to his tweet are extraordinary, saying that perhaps we should not be as supportive of these sorts of restrictions and regulations. But we are, and we think that is right.
It would be easy to fall into the narcissism of small differences that one can in opposition, with the Government saying it should be a role of six and us saying it should be a rule of seven or five. Or the Government could say, as they do in SI No. 907, that the fixed penalty should be £10,000, and we could say it should be £9,500. We are not doing any of that—it takes up time and it does not help—but that shared and collective well of goodwill has to come from being able to scrutinise what the Government choose to do and to regulate in a proper and timely manner and in a way that is effective for our constituents. I would gently say, and I will talk about this shortly, that we are on the edge of that goodwill with these regulations. In fact, we are probably past the edge.
I am sure the irony will not be lost on hon. Members of discussing legislation that reopens part of the economy as we wait to hear at half-past 11 details of it being closed down again. It will definitely affect venues that are covered in SI No. 863. I have seen it said by industry bodies, certainly about casinos, that they will hear about the retrospective rubber-stamping of their ability to reopen on the one hand and the 10 pm curfew on the other, if what has been briefed to the newspapers is accurate, and that is likely to be harmful for them.
That does not mean that it is the wrong thing to do, but when we are not discussing such matters in a timely manner, they start to look inconsistent and a bit chaotic. Part of that is inevitable because of the fast-moving pace of the pandemic, but part of it is a need for better organisation. I hope that the Minister will talk about where we might go in future on that.
We broadly support the measures and we will not divide the Committee on them, because halting the spread of the virus and keeping people safe is the No. 1 priority for us all. SI No. 863, however, came into effect nine and a half weeks ago, so we are scrutinising it long after the fact. SI No. 907 is much more recent and came into effect only three and a half weeks ago. That is pretty hard to justify. I had a similar conversation with the Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), yesterday about measures that were eight weeks old. She discussed the backlog and the complications because of recess, but we had four or five sitting days after SI No. 863 came into effect on 15 July. We are running just to catch up and we are a long way behind.
We understand the need to be efficient. We never want to be in a situation where important regulations that would reduce infection rates are being held up merely because of our opportunity to talk about them, but I do not think that is the same. No one could make a solid case for the public interest of waiting nine and a half weeks to discuss these things. It is a pattern that has been raised many times.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I welcome the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech which, in Wales, we try to emulate, given that the Welsh Labour Government are in charge of similar regulations. May I gently push back, however, since he is gently pushing, and say that the level of scrutiny that we are operating for these regulations far exceeds what we have in Wales in terms of the scrutiny of the regulations there?
Alex Norris
I am certainly no expert in the operation of secondary legislation in the Senedd; my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East might be better at that than me. From what we have in front of us, however, I know that nine and a half weeks does not work, whether that is a good level of scrutiny or not. We are here on a fool’s errand, frankly. Our time is not being used in particularly constructive way. I do not know if that is revealing what is behind the curtain in a way that we are perhaps not allowed to do, but that is true. I cannot address the specific point about Wales, but I know that it will not do for us.
The issue has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and, indeed, in the other place. We do not exist to rubber stamp and nobody would want us to. We are here to scrutinise, because these are exceptionally important regulations. They are important in their substance, because we are all significant stakeholders in their success, and our scrutiny of them is important because of public confidence. We need public confidence in the changes that are made because we need people to comply with them. People are smart. If they think that the process has been cooked, they will smell that a mile off.
Some 17 statutory instruments are being debated this week, all of which are in force. Recently, regulations have come into force only a quarter of an hour after they have been available to read, which does not work. Other regulations have come into force and been revoked before being discussed. That will not do; it is not proper parliamentary scrutiny. We absolutely need a solid commitment from the Government, hopefully today, or definitely soon, about how we will get upstream and catch up. I said this yesterday and I was not contradicted by my Whip so I will say it again: we would be minded to be efficient and fast-moving in our scrutiny of the backlog if it meant that we could get upstream to the consideration of the measures that are coming in.
Indeed, it seems that extra restrictions are coming in today, so when does the Minister foresee a Committee discussing them? What will be the timeline for that? The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) asked yesterday what we would be willing to do workwise in order to be available at the right time, and my answer is whatever it takes. I hope the Whip does not contradict me; I am volunteering myself more than anything else. The Under-Secretary asked whether I would be willing to be here seven days a week. Well, yes, if that is what it takes. I have no doubt the Minister is working seven days a week. We are more than willing to match that energy.
To make a very quick point, I see lots of 2019 Members and I envy them to a great degree because they missed what we were doing this time last year on Brexit. Putting aside the massive substance of that issue, we have an awful lot of debates, increasingly on other Bills too, on statutory instruments and the negative and affirmative procedure. Sometimes I think it looks as if we are being deliberately obtuse and saying, “That is by the negative procedure; it should be by the affirmative procedure.” Of course, that is what an Opposition would want. We do not want really significant changes such as these discussed at such a distant time period so that the discussion is meaningless and the horse is already three or four fields down. That is why it matters to us. I raised the matter at length during debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, and I know that on Second Reading peers in the other place did, too. I hope the Government can come up with something more sensible because there are significant powers under the negative procedure. I think that is disproportionate and I have explained the reasons why.
Moving back to these statutory instruments, our operating them competently proves the value of the Coronavirus Act 2020. Colleagues will have had conspiracy theory emails about coronavirus, many of which carry little value, but they will also have had a smaller number of emails that sometimes get lost in it all about very legitimate concerns to do with the Coronavirus Act—I would say rightly; we all supported it—because it gives the Government a lot of power to act swiftly to make significant regulations regarding individual freedom. The catch in that, or the check and balance in that, is that we reassure constituents that these things are scrutinised properly, and that has to be true. We cannot be far from the Act being up for renewal. I have already had emails, as others have, saying, “You had better not support it now; it is a massive breach of personal liberty”, but I do not buy that analysis. We have to be able to say that, during the six months, it has done its job competently, and we are, as I say, stretching that as a credible argument at the moment.
SI No. 907 is significant. Again, I think it is proportionate. The Minister made the point that someone cannot stumble accidentally into a party of more than 30 people. There is no way that someone acting responsibly and in line with regulations could accidentally get caught up in that. That is why the fine is significant and probably about right. How many times has it been used? I know it has definitely been used once in Nottingham—not in my constituency, but in the Nottingham South constituency. It got a lot of interest locally, which is not a bad thing because it was a good reminder of what people can and cannot do. I am interested to know how many times it has been used.
The vast majority of people have done the right thing the vast majority of the time. The Minister was right to praise the British people because they have responded incredibly in really difficult times, but the shoe has to drop sometimes, and that is the right thing to do.
I want to make a final point on testing and tracing because I cannot miss an opportunity to raise it with Ministers. This afternoon we are almost certainly going to backslide. We are going to rubber-stamp opening up parts of our economy, and in about two hours’ time we are going to close it back down again. That is not a good sign. To a certain extent it is to be expected. As infection rates rise, restrictions will increase. We have known that from the start. However, it would be less likely to happen, if at all, or would happen in a much more modest way, if we had an effective testing and tracing operation in place, which we do not, as everybody knows. Part of the problem is that the Minister is very defensive when we raise that, but we do so it because we need it to work. A vaccine is something in the middle distance, but testing and tracing is a way to drive down infection rates today. It clearly is not operating at its full capacity—forget world-class and all the nonsense public relations elements of it. We need it to be an effective operation so that people can have confidence in it. Again, I would be very grateful for the Minister’s engagement and reflections on that.
I note that the Minister referred to sports pilots, but it seems that we are going to find out that they cannot take place. Perhaps I have a personal vested interest in that, but there will be a lot of disappointment. There will be an existential problem for a lot of clubs in our communities that are struggling. People who are desperate for one of those great pleasures in life will be very disappointed. We need that proper test and trace operation in place if we are to do everything we can to drive down infection rates. I will conclude on that point. I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks, and I hope he can address some of my points.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, a fellow east midlands MP, for his typically constructive tone, his well-informed and measured remarks, as ever, and his kind words about the work of Ministers in this context, even if there is political disagreement at times. As he and others will see, I am a little greyer, and there is rather less hair there than there was six months ago.
Before responding to some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, which I will endeavour to answer, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to working with colleagues across the House in ensuring proper scrutiny of these regulations. I will come to his specific points in a minute. Although, as we have both acknowledged, these restrictions have been tough for people, businesses and public services, they have been absolutely necessary to protect the public, and I remain incredibly grateful for the sacrifices that people have made.
We will continue to be guided by the scientific data. I am always cautious about using the words “the science”, because as we know there are multiple views within the scientific community, and that is inevitable in the context of a new disease about which we knew virtually nothing six or seven months ago. Every day, we learn more about it. It is quite right that that debate is going on in the scientific community, because it is through that that we learn and understand more about this disease.
With the recent rule of six and the restrictions on the north-east, the Government have shown that we are willing to reimpose restrictions at a national or local level to restrict the spread of the virus where necessary. Notwithstanding the ability of the ladies and gentlemen of the press to seem to be always slightly ahead of things, I will not prejudge what the Prime Minister will say later this morning to the House. It is quite right that he does that to the House, so I will not pre-comment on what he is going to say. I would say, however—the hon. Member for Nottingham North alluded to this—that hospitality businesses, pubs and restaurants have done extraordinary work to prepare to reopen after a period of closure. We are entirely sympathetic to the impact that this has had on them. It is no fault of theirs; they have done everything they can to make their businesses, where people are in their businesses, covid secure. Of course, once people leave those premises, other challenges arise. The Prime Minister will set out in greater detail later this morning the response to what we are seeing, in terms of the infection rate.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about penalty notices and fines. I am afraid that I do not have the number of £10,000 fines that have been issued, but between 27 March and 17 August, 18,683 fixed-penalty notices for a variety of infringements of regulations were issued. That, of course, is reflective not just of the number of offences but of the efforts by the police across the country. I know that they see enforcement with a fine as a last resort; they will try in the first instance to educate, engage with people and explain why they should not be doing things and why they should change their behaviour where they are contravening regulations or guidance. I pay tribute—I am doing a lot of this today, but it is right to do so—to the police around the country, who have done amazing work in very difficult circumstances.
Before I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s points about parliamentary scrutiny and the nature of the process that we have followed, he mentioned briefly the testing system in this country. I will say two things on that. First, let us not fail to recognise the significant progress that has been made in getting a testing system up from scratch in the past six months. Per 1,000 of the population we are testing more people than France, Germany, Spain and Italy. In the latest figures I saw, which were possibly about a week and a half out of date, it was about 2.3 per 1,000 of our population, which is double what it is—it is about 1.15, I think—in France, Italy, Spain and similar countries.
It is important that we recognise that a huge amount has been done on testing, but the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight it. Being straight with people is hugely important in the business that we are all in—in public service and in politics. The Prime Minister was right to say that we have made progress, but there is a huge amount still to do and we need to do more to achieve it. That is why I welcomed the new Lighthouse lab, which has just about come onstream, very near me—and very near the hon. Gentleman—in Loughborough, to increase the lab testing and processing capacity, which is where the bottlenecks have been. Further lab capacity will be brought onstream in the coming weeks significantly to ramp up the capacity to process tests and thereby avoid those bottlenecks. He is right to highlight the importance of testing, but we are taking every step that we can to address those challenges within the system.
I recognise the concerns that colleagues across the House have sometimes expressed about the scrutiny of coronavirus regulations and the rules put in place due to the Government’s having to rely on the emergency procedures set out in section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. We have needed to move extremely fast both to tackle outbreaks of disease and to address behaviours that can lead to an increase in infection rates. Equally, as soon as we can safely ease restrictions, given the impact that they have had on individuals and businesses, it is right that we do not wait to do that either.
The arrangement of business in this House, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the House and their opposite numbers and, indeed, the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman will know that Standing Order 72 prevents us from taking affirmative statutory instruments until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on them. When regulations have to be debated, those debates take place in the light of reports from the JCSI.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the idea of our sitting day seven days a week if necessary. Although it is always a pleasure to spend time with him, and indeed with all colleagues in the House, I would gently say, as I look at the Government and Opposition Whips, that that is a matter for the usual channels. On a serious note, I am sure that they are continuing to work closely together to find ways in which we can facilitate timely discussion and debate of the regulations.
Each statutory instrument is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in line with the requirements of its parent Act, with the requirement that they are debated in both Houses within 28 days, beginning from the day when the instrument is made, unless during that period the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House. Timely scrutiny is important, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard me recognise that in my recent evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am not a million miles away from agreeing with the reasons that he cited.
When we are taking very difficult decisions, transparency and scrutiny are hugely important in conferring legitimacy on what we are doing, and in building awareness of them and building the consent that is necessary in this country to ensure that people comply. I take his point and, as he knows, I never shy away from an opportunity to appear before the House or Committees such as this.
The hon. Gentleman rightly touched on the recess. Although I note his comments about the regulations that were made just before recess, the recess period limited our ability to introduce some of the regulations at that time. We are, however, to use his phrase, catching up a bit with the backlog. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash was sitting in the same seat, going through Delegated Legislation Committee procedure. We were debating four sets of regulations, two of which were made in September. The lag between making regulations and debating them is therefore being significantly reduced. I know that she and other colleagues—ministerial and the usual channels—are working hard to try to ensure that we can debate things in a timely fashion.
Alongside that, Ministers continue to provide oral statements and answer urgent questions in the House on the broader themes of what we are doing and how we are approaching the pandemic, and to answer questions in oral questions sessions. I believe that Westminster Hall sittings may be due to resume at some point in the near future, which will provide further opportunity for scrutiny and debate. With that in mind, I am grateful to the shadow Minister and to all colleagues, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 863).
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS) (RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING OF GATHERINGS AND AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions on Holding of Gatherings and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 907).—(Edward Argar.)
Draft International Monetary Fund (Limit on Lending) Order 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Monetary Fund (Limit On Lending) Order 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The International Monetary Fund plays a critical role at the very heart of the international economic system that ensures global economic stability and facilitates long-term economic growth and poverty reduction around the world. It operates as the global lender of last resort, providing crucial financial assistance to countries in economic crisis and supporting their return to a stable economic footing. This helps to prevent economic instability overseas from spilling over into the UK economy.
The indispensable role of the IMF has never been more evident than during the covid-19 pandemic. The fund has responded with unprecedented speed and breadth to support countries’ health and economic responses, in turn preventing further instability overseas from affecting the UK. The order will increase the legal limit on the amount that the UK is able to lend to the IMF, allowing us to fulfil the internationally agreed outcome of the 15th general review of quotas.
In December 2019, IMF members, including the UK, agreed to maintain the size of overall IMF resources at current levels. It was agreed that this would be done by maintaining the level of quota resources, doubling the new arrangements to borrow and significantly reducing the bilateral borrowing agreements. Quota resources are permanent while the NAB and BBAs are intended to be temporary and are together classed as borrowed resources. IMF members agreed to implement the agreement by the end of 2020, ahead of the existing NAB and BBAs’ expiry. The UK contributes to both types of borrowed resources and therefore must implement the agreement by doubling our commitment to the NAB and decreasing our commitment to the BBAs. As the UK contributes a relatively larger share of the NAB than the BBAs, that will result in an increased UK commitment to the IMF overall.
The UK’s loan agreements to the IMF are denominated in the IMF’s unit of account, the special drawing right. The UK’s maximum commitment to IMF borrowed resources stands at 18.66 billion SDR, which is approximately £20.65 billion at today’s exchange rate. The order will raise the UK’s ceiling for lending to the IMF to 22.91 billion SDR, equivalent to £25.36 billion. The new ceiling is equal to our new contribution as agreed at the 15th general review of quotas and represents an increase in the UK’s commitment to IMF borrowed resources of 4.25 billion SDR or £4.7 billion.
I want to make it clear that lending to the IMF does not represent public spending and such loans do not detract from money that we need to spend in the UK; nor do they contribute to UK net debt levels or the deficit. The IMF holds primary creditor status, meaning that it is repaid even if other creditors are not. It conducts rigorous analysis on all lending and cannot lend into unsustainable debt positions. A loan to the IMF is a loan to probably the most creditworthy institution in the world. No country has ever lost money lending to the IMF. I also want to make it clear that such lending does not represent an additional up-front financing commitment for the UK, but simply increases the potential amount of financing from the UK that the IMF can call on, should it be required. At present, neither the NAB nor the BBAs are being used. While that may change if global financial conditions deteriorate, the UK can use its independent seat at the IMF’s executive board to continue to scrutinise, debate and vote on the use of such resources.
It is in our interests to support the IMF in implementing the 15th general review of quotas. It preserves the IMF’s resources, allowing it to respond quickly to economic crises and retain market confidence. Key members such as the US are also significantly increasing their commitments under the agreement. Although the agreement was reached in December 2019, the covid-19 pandemic makes its implementation more important than ever. Over the past few months, the IMF has provided financial assistance to 80 countries, totalling about £67 billion, and has approved debt service relief grants to 28 of its poorest members. A well resourced IMF is critical to achieving a strong global economic recovery, ensuring a strong trading environment for the UK, and reducing the risk of overseas crises having an impact on UK growth.
The Government believe that it is in the UK’s interests to have a strong and effective IMF at the heart of the international financial system. It is essential that the UK plays its part by increasing its ceiling for lending to the IMF, and in so doing implementing the internationally agreed 15th general review of quotas. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the order, which I commend to the Committee.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
As the Minister explained, the order authorises an increase in the UK’s contingent contribution to the IMF of just under £5 billion, and it does so at an important time. The increase was agreed by Finance Ministers and central bank governors in December last year, before it was known how big a challenge the pandemic would become. The question we are faced with is whether what we are doing internationally is anywhere near enough.
The pandemic has produced drastic economic effects across the world. Of course, many of the lowest income countries lack the medical resources to fight it, to treat patients, to test on a large scale or to support workers who have lost their jobs as a result of lockdowns or a decrease in economic activity. The International Labour Organisation estimates that 400 million full-time equivalent jobs were lost in the second quarter of this year. The World Bank projects that an additional 71 million people will fall into extreme poverty.
The race is on to devise an effective vaccine to help the world to recover. We should be proud that British science is at the forefront of that effort, but even if it is successful, there will be a huge logistical and healthcare challenge to make sure that a vaccine can be administered to the world’s population. Many countries will need economic help to make sure that that can happen. If ever there were a situation where we are all in it together, this is it.
Our chief medical officer reminded us yesterday that no one can think of just themselves in this situation; the actions that we take affect others. What goes for individuals goes for countries too. In a world as connected as ours, it is in all our interests to make sure that every country is as equipped as possible to fight the virus. As the managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, wrote earlier this month:
“An uneven rollout might improve economic conditions in countries that secured the vaccine first but would not shield them from weak demand from trade partners struggling to recover without a vaccine.”
There are also the damaging social effects of what is already happening. She continued:
“young children, especially those from poor households, may suffer permanent losses…from a lack of schooling, adequate nutrition, and medical access.”
In the face of such challenges, it is striking how little international co-ordination there has been. Country by country, we have fought the virus, but the world has lacked the leadership to bring different countries together and co-ordinate a truly global economic or health response. We approve the increased funding for the IMF, but the real question is why more has not been done globally to co-ordinate the fight against the pandemic that we are in the midst of.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for his support of the order. He makes some general points, probably outside the scope of this specific order, about the need for greater collaboration among nations in supporting the dire circumstances of the most vulnerable. I will just point out that at a time when the UK is providing, through the order, more money for the IMF, the IMF’s lending toolkit consists of the general resource account and the poverty reduction and growth trust, and the £2.2 billion loan announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was directed to the PRGT, which is the IMF’s concessional lending resource. Similarly, the £150 million grant through the IMF’s catastrophe containment and relief trust is targeted only at the poorest and more vulnerable PRGT members.
Quoting the managing director of the IMF, the right hon. Gentleman makes some very valid points about how we will need to look at how we co-ordinate responses to the full effect of the pandemic, but I think that those matters are perhaps beyond the scope of today’s order. What is clear is that it is in the UK’s interest to have a strong, effective and legitimate IMF at the heart of the international financial system and it is therefore key that we implement our part and our duty in this agreement.
I do not wish to detain the Committee any further. I hope that everyone will be able to join me in supporting the order this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Greencore) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 921).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The regulations came into force on 29 August. On 21 August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that, due to a significant covid-19 outbreak at Greencore Food to Go Ltd, regulations would be laid requiring the workforce and their households to self-isolate for a period of 14 days, to contain the outbreak and avoid the need to impose restrictions on the wider community.
The concern about the risk of transmission across the workforce at Greencore and out into the wider community of Northampton was significant. Engagement with local leaders and company directors was extensive, repeated and productive. To that end, I would like to thank Greencore, Public Health England, the joint biosecurity centre, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health and Social Care, Northampton Borough Council, Northamptonshire County Council and, in particular, Lucy Wightman, the latter council’s director of public health, for their constructive engagement with one another.
The decision to act was not driven by numbers only; it was a judgment about the overall situation. It was necessary to make this change as quickly as practicable in recognition of the immediate risk of a continued increase in the incidence of covid-19 among the workforce at Greencore as the main cause of wider community transmission. During the period from 9 to 15 August, Northampton saw a sharp spike in its weekly incidence rate to 116.4 per 100,000 of population. NHS test and trace data showed that most of the covid-19 transmission appeared to occur within the household and community settings that were then traced back to the staff who were employed or had worked at the local Greencore site.
Action had already been taken to protect Greencore employees. The whole workforce were tested. The factory layout was amended to make it more covid-secure than before, and deep cleaning was carried out. We had hoped that those interventions and the work of local public health teams would drive the infection rate down without our having to take further action. However, a large percentage of the workforce continued to test positive for the virus. It was likely that that was due to people socialising together outside work, for example by sharing accommodation or by car sharing to get to and from work.
At the local action gold committee meeting on 20 August, a decision was taken to require Greencore to close its food manufacturing site in Northampton and to require the workforce and their direct household contacts to self-isolate for 14 days. Those actions were supported by Greencore’s leaders. Current Government guidance advises that anyone who tests positive for the virus should self-isolate for 10 days from the date of the test. Anyone who has been in close contact with them is advised to self-isolate for 14 days. Requiring household members of Greencore workers to self-isolate went further than current Government guidance. However, that measure was necessary due to the scale of the outbreak and the risk posed to the wider community if further transmission was not prevented.
I now turn to the data provided that informed the decisions to which I have referred. Mass testing at Greencore started on 10 August. Following that first round of testing, nearly 300 members of staff tested positive for coronavirus. On 19 August, Greencore commenced retesting all staff who had previously tested negative, detecting further positive cases. In total, some 317 staff tested positive, giving a final positivity rate of over 20%. The weekly incidence rate for Northampton peaked at 125 per 100,000 people, and positivity rose to 9.2%. By comparison, the background incidence rate for Northampton, excluding positive tests from the Greencore workforce, was 38 per 100,000 for the same period.
The regulations required Greencore staff who have worked at the company’s designated production site since 7 August 2020 and members of their household to self-isolate for 14 days from 21 August, or for a shorter period in certain specified circumstances. Those dates were calculated to reflect the incubation period of covid-19. Although the regulations only came into force on 26 August, the workforce and their households were able to start their isolation from 21 August, when the site had closed temporarily.
The regulations specified exactly who was required to self-isolate and for how long, recognising that some workers had already started to self-isolate following their earlier positive tests. The regulations made provision to exclude household members if the Greencore worker had chosen to isolate separately. Provisions were also included to enable those self-isolating to access or provide emergency care and support, or to obtain basic necessities such as food and medical supplies.
Given the urgency of the Greencore situation, we used the emergency procedure provided for by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make the present regulations as soon as possible. The regulations will expire this Friday, 25 September, 28 days after they came into force.
Regulations 7 to 11 set out how the provisions will be enforced. It is a criminal offence to breach the requirement to self-isolate. As with the national regulations, there is the possibility of a fixed penalty notice or a fine following conviction. We also published guidance on the gov.uk website for Greencore workers and their households, to help them understand what they can and cannot do under the regulations.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth, that it was likely that infections would rise and that, in particular areas or workplaces, we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to outbreaks. Greencore should be commended for acting so promptly and choosing voluntarily to go above and beyond its role as an employer to support the wider community in Northampton. Local rates have reduced to a weekly incident rate of 38 per 100,000 from 7 to 13 September.
The Greencore regulations have demonstrated our willingness and ability to act quickly, where we need to, to control specific outbreaks. We will of course use the experience of the Greencore restrictions to inform and develop our responses to future local outbreaks.
Finally, I thank those Greencore employees and members of their households who completed the required periods of self-isolation and who responded so positively and well to the measures put in place. It is thanks to their continued effort that we were able to contain the outbreak and avoid the need to impose restrictions on the wider community. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for her introduction. As we know, coronavirus has not gone away; it remains an ongoing threat, which means that we still require regulations of this nature. We will no doubt hear some more in the Prime Minister’s statement later today.
The desire to avoid another national lockdown has meant that over the past few months we have seen the introduction of regulations to allow local restrictions to be introduced where they are needed to curb the spread of the virus, although I think this is the first statutory instrument to specify a workplace, rather than a geographical location. As we heard, the instrument imposed restrictions on Greencore workers and members of their households to reduce the likelihood of further transmissions of the virus to workers, their families and the wider community following an outbreak of cases at the company’s premises in Northampton.
Between 9 and 15 August, Northampton saw an increase of 8% in the number of individuals testing positive for coronavirus, raising the weekly incident rate from 38.6 per 100,000 of population the previous week to 116.4. Based on test and trace data, most of the covid-19 transmission appeared to have occurred within households and community settings that could be traced back to staff who were employed at the Greencore factories in Northampton. Following that, Greencore arranged for mass testing their workforce of 1,140 workers, of which 214 tested positive—a positivity rate of about 19% or 20%. A further 79 cases were identified through test and trace.
As the Minister outlined, these regulations, which came into force on 29 August, set out which workers were required to self-isolate, which members of their household were also required to self-isolate, and which workers were exempted from that requirement. They required those identified to self-isolate until 5 September, either in their home, the home of a friend or family member, a hotel, a hostel, or another suitable place. The regulations also set out the conditions required by self- isolation, including who the person in self-isolation does not need to isolate from, and the reasons for which the person can leave or be outside of the place where they are self-isolating. They further set out the requirement for anyone who joins the household of a person who is self-isolating to self-isolate for a further 14 days from when they joined that household.
The regulations also provide powers for an authorised person, such as a police officer, to enforce compliance with self-isolation, and create summary-only criminal offences for contravening requirements to self-isolate or, without reasonable excuse, contravening a requirement imposed under the enforcement powers. They create a further offence of wilful obstruction without reasonable excuse of any person carrying out a function under the regulations. Finally, the regulations authorise the issuing of fixed penalty notices to anyone who an authorised person has reasonable grounds to believe committed an offence under these regulations, designates persons who may prosecute the offences, and officers who may collect the fixed penalties. Again, these are similar powers to those we have seen in other regulations, although I have a little issue with the powers in this one, which I will come back to later.
As with all the restriction regulations that we have debated in Committee, we are debating these regulations late. The Greencore workers have self-isolated as per the regulations and have returned to work, so although the regulations are still in place, they are no longer relevant—as we heard, they are due to expire shortly anyway. However, it is important that we understand whether they have been effective and whether we can learn anything from this situation, because they represented the single most serious action taken to deal with an outbreak in an individual institution. This hopefully puts us in a better position to learn from the outbreak, so we are best placed to prevent similar future outbreaks and respond swiftly and effectively in future. I say that because, from the information I have received, it appears that there were opportunities that were missed, which related to three things: a failure to listen to concerns raised by those working at Greencore, a failure to provide adequate financial support for workers to self-isolate, and a failure to communicate with workers.
As far back as March, Greencore workers were challenging the adequacy of covid-19 protections, including concerns about staff access to risk assessments, social distancing, the availability of personal protective equipment, and temperature checks. In May, they also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the company’s contact tracing process after it had taken it 48 hours, following a member of staff notifying the company that they had tested positive, to inform six other staff members that they needed to self-isolate. In the same month, concerns were also raised about the lack of a written covid-19 procedure and a lack of company sick pay for most workers during self-isolation because of their flexible contracts.
When 287 cases of covid-19 were identified between 10 August and 12 August, those who tested positive and their households were told to self-isolate and did so, but the factory remained open. It was not until 21 August, following pressure from the Bakers, Food and Allied Food Workers Union, that Greencore announced that it would immediately cease production at its Northampton site in order to allow staff to self-isolate for 14 days. Of course, we will never know whether that delay had any impact on the spread of the virus, and clearly the account I have is somewhat different from the Minister’s. However, I suggest that, following the review of this regulation, we ought to consider whether any delay could have been avoided, and to what extent that had an impact on the spread of the virus.
We do know for certain that the financial impact of a complete shutdown of production was felt most harshly by the lowest paid workers. I will come back to that point momentarily, but I just want to say a word about the unions. Although not all of their concerns were listened to or acted upon swiftly, and they were not able to play their part in preventing a serious outbreak, there is no doubt that their interventions led to great improvements to protect workers and, in turn, the wider public. I pay tribute to the Bakers, Food and Allied Food Workers Union for its work, as well as the many other bodies the Minister mentioned in her opening speech.
We know that for many others in other workplaces, airing concerns can be difficult or even impossible at the moment: no space is made for it. The Office for National Statistics’ figures for May of this year found that people in low-paid manual jobs faced a much greater risk of dying from coronavirus than higher-paid, white-collar workers, with men in low-skilled jobs four times more likely to die from the virus than men in professional occupations. Raising health and safety concerns at work has never been an easy thing, and those who put their head above the parapet often face consequences for doing so. Yes, they may have legal protection in theory, but that protection is full of loopholes and having a theoretical chance of justice in an employment tribunal months down the line is far from satisfactory.
It is little wonder that workers do not always feel confident in raising their concerns. In the current climate, it is not just about individual justice, but also about making sure everyone can do their bit to stop the spread of the virus. I ask the Minister, in the light of those experiences, whether any consideration has been given to increasing protection for workers who raise concerns in relation to coronavirus.
Greencore has said, as has the Minister, that it works closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. When responding, can the Minister advise whether there has been any assessment of the effectiveness of the instrument, or any formal assessment of health and safety arrangements at Greencore following its re-opening? I mention that in particular because I believe that on 1 September the BFAWU submitted a formal grievance stating that some health and safety procedures were still not being followed. That is of concern because we do not want a repeat of the situation we had in August.
Coming back to the pay situation, the workforce at Greencore is about 2,100, with approximately 1,800 production staff, about 800 of whom are on minimum-wage, flexible contracts. Greencore also makes heavy use of agency staff, with a lot of Greencore workers also working at other factories and warehouses nearby, which is one of the concerns people had about the spread of the virus. When the 292 workers who initially tested positive in the middle of August were sent home, they were on statutory sick pay. Then, when the factory was shut down on 21 August, workers were furloughed on 80% of their wage, although it is reported that the management received full pay.
When workers were furloughed in March, they too received 80% of their wage, which for many was the minimum wage, so there was no company top-up. I assume it was the same level again here, which according to the BFAWU meant that 60% of Greencore workers received less than the minimum wage during the period of isolation. As one would expect, that would potentially make it harder for them to comply with subsequent self-isolation requirements if some felt compelled to work to make ends meet. The impact was particularly felt by those workers living in households where everyone worked for Greencore. In some cases, the families work and live in the same house and travel together to work, which, again, is another reason the virus was spreading so much.
As Members will know, the Opposition have long called for those who are self-isolating to get proper financial support. The scientific advisory group for emergencies has said that the value of SSP appears to be having a negative impact on people’s ability to self-isolate. It really should not have taken until this weekend for the Government to realise that people on low incomes need more help. It suggests a lack of basic understanding about people’s lives, which is undermining the effort to stop the spread of the virus.
The belated announcement of additional financial support for those who have to self-isolate is of little comfort to the Greencore workers who found themselves in the terrible position of having to choose between complying with regulations and putting food on the table. Did the Government consider whether the payments being made would be sufficient in that situation to encourage self-isolation? Can the Minister advise what discussions, if any, were undertaken with the company about that?
Finally, I want to say a few words about communication. The instrument was published part way through the self-isolation period over a bank holiday weekend. That is despite the placing of significant responsibilities on the workforce and, indeed, significant consequences for breaching the regulations. I am told that no effort was made to disseminate the regulations to the workforce, either in English or in any of the languages spoken by the workforce. The majority of staff who work there come from minority groups—their first language might be Romanian, Russian, Polish, Hindi or Portuguese. Clearly, the interpretation of complex regulations such as these ought to have been considered. I am sure that all of us who can read the regulations can appreciate that they are not that straightforward to understand.
I have also been informed that there was no official notification of the beginning or end of the self-isolation proceed. Instead, members of the workforce started to be called back to work by text message from 4 September. We have said from the start that communication and clear messaging matter; they are crucial in our fight against the virus. If we want public support for what we are doing—none of these measures will work without it—people need to understand what is happening and why. Unless we are clear, the public will not respond. We cannot expect them to follow instructions if they have not been communicated to them. I believe that, in this instance, more consideration could and should have been given to ensuring that the regulations were both clear and accessible to the workforce affected. Will the Government take additional steps to ensure that any future restrictions of this nature reach the entire desired audience in a clear and accessible format?
I will make one final point. Although I will not seek to divide the Committee on the regulations, I will make my customary reference to the fact that they are being debated after the event. I remind the Minister that the Opposition’s view is that parliamentary accountability remains an essential part of democracy and that decision making is improved as a result of debate. I will not repeat my entire repertoire of all the reasons why the regulations should be debated before they become law, as the Minister has no doubt heard it many times before. On this occasion, I absolutely accept that it was not possible to do that, because of the urgency of the situation and the fact that the problems emerged when the House was in recess.
Can the Minister say anything about the fact that the regulations came into force eight days after the period of self-isolation set out in the regulations began? I am sure that she can see that there might have been problems if someone had really wanted to challenge their self-isolation before 28 August. In fact, they might well have been able to do so. It cannot legally be correct to impose a power on someone before the relevant regulations came into force. There was no power for people to be required to self-isolate with the criminal offences attached before 28 August. Can the Minister say whether fixed penalty notices could have been issued if someone had failed to comply with the regulations before 28 August, and whether retrospectivity would have applied in that situation?
We will not seek to divide the Committee, but I hope the Minister can address some of the points that I have raised and tell us whether any lessons that can be learned from the impact of the regulations can be used to good effect in future.
Jo Churchill
I thank hon. Members for this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his comments. If it has highlighted anything, it is that the regulations are of a timely nature and use the 1984 Act in a way that is defined and applicable. I am glad that the hon. Member sees that the Act has use for controlling the virus. We have often traded words: he would like more notice before, and I have often said, “Actually, we need to act at speed. We need this to be agile, which is why we are proceeding in this way.”
The Greencore sites were deep cleaned and inspected by the relevant agencies—the Health and Safety Executive and the Environmental Agency—before reopening. There are currently ongoing reviews, and I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that we are very much in the time zone. The regulations do not expire until Friday, but reviews of the effectiveness of the regulations are happening now.
It is my understanding that guidance was given in different languages and made available by the local authority and employers in multiple languages. Greencore used the furlough scheme to support workers who were self-isolating, and it voluntarily paid up to 80% of salaries to staff who could not be furloughed.
The restrictions that we have debated are necessary and important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they have helped to protect the Greencore workforce and the people of Northampton and the surrounding area from the transmission of this terrible virus. The restrictions we had to impose were difficult for those affected, but I hope the Greencore employees and their households recognise that letting the virus spread unchecked would have been worse. I once again place on the record my thanks for the way they approached the matter.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s answers. She is right that on this occasion we have no difficulty with the speed with which the regulations were introduced. However, there is the outstanding question of retrospective power to hand out fixed penalty notices for a period before the regulations came into force. Is that legally possible?
Jo Churchill
The regulations were unenforceable before coming into force, and therefore they do not operate retrospectively, which I think answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Jo Churchill
Secondly, the restrictions are important because they protect those of us who do not live in Northampton. As a result of the restrictions, the risk of transmission beyond Northampton was reduced, and high infection rates in the city did not spread elsewhere. We should recognise the restrictions and the difficulties faced by Greencore employees and their households. The sacrifices they made will have benefited the whole country.
Finally, the restrictions show our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused, locally effective way. We are learning from what has happened in Greencore as we work with local authorities, directors of public health and other businesses to respond to future localised outbreaks, one of which recently happened in Norfolk. I am pleased that as of 25 August Greencore was able to restart food production and that those affected were able to return to work once they completed the required period of self-isolation.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution today, and want to conclude by recording, on behalf of the Government, my thanks to the people of Greencore in Northampton, and particularly to NHS and care workers, and all the key workers in the city, for their ongoing hard work to keep vital services running and save lives through the crisis.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT SERVICES OF LAWYERS AND LAWYER'S PRACTICE (REVOCATION ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we start, I remind everyone that social distancing applies in this Committee as elsewhere. The little blue markers indicate where you can sit. Please observe all the other rules and regulations that the House has set out. If you make a speech, it would be very helpful to Hansard if you sent your notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? The draft instrument relates to the recognition of legal qualifications and European lawyers’ practice rights, and forms part of the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It will revoke and replace our existing legislation, which was made in 2019 in preparation for the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement and is now consequently out of date.
The regulations remedy the deficiency in retained EU law, as such law makes provision for reciprocal arrangements with the EU that will no longer exist. Consequently, by applying that principle of reciprocity, the regulations will remove from our domestic legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland any preferential practice rights for EU, European economic area and Swiss lawyers permitted under the EU frameworks for lawyers, so that they are treated in the same way as third-country lawyers after the transition period. I should stress that EU, EEA and European Free Trade Association-qualified lawyers who have already successfully become solicitors or barristers before the end of the transition period will be able to retain their qualifications and related practice rights.
The Committee will be aware that the Government have signed agreements with the EU, the EEA-EFTA states and Switzerland, which contain arrangements regarding the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Those agreements make provision for EEA and Swiss nationals living and working in the UK, and vice-versa. The instrument will give effect to provisions in those agreements relating to lawyers’ practice rights and the recognition of legal qualifications for EEA and Swiss lawyers in scope of the agreements. Let me be clear: Scotland will be taking forward its own legislation on this matter.
Before I turn to the detail of the instrument, I will briefly set out the background. EU law currently enables UK, EU and EFTA lawyers from one state to establish and practise in another state under their home state professional title, without necessarily having to requalify in the other state. The lawyers’ services directive allows specified lawyers to provide regulated legal services in a member state other than the one in which they qualified—termed a “host state”—without the need to register with a host state regulator. Lawyers provide services under their existing professional title, which is otherwise termed their home state professional title. The directive clarifies the applicable regulatory rules and the conditions for providing services in a host state.
The lawyers’ establishment directive allows specified lawyers from one member state to practise reserved legal activities on a permanent basis in another member state, under their home state professional title, and sets out the conditions for doing so. It also allows lawyers who are practising in another member state to be admitted to the profession in that member state after three years of practice in a host state, without having to go through the usual qualification routes. A European lawyer practising in the UK under the lawyers establishment directive must be registered with a UK regulator as a registered European lawyer—or REL, as they are referred to. As RELs, they have the right to own legal businesses without a UK qualified lawyer.
In 2019, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement, the Government made legislation that removed the preferential practice rights of EU and EEA-EFTA lawyers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to come into force on exit day. I will refer to that legislation as the 2019 regulations. A further amending instrument was made—again in 2019—to implement parts of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, in readiness for exit day.
The 2019 regulations and the 2019 amendment regulations were not designed to come into force at the end of the transition period under a withdrawal agreement—in other words, they were put in place for no deal, in the event that no withdrawal agreement was secured. Given that the UK secured a withdrawal agreement and a separation agreement with the EEA-EFTA states, as well as the citizens’ rights agreement with Switzerland, some provisions in the 2019 regulations are either no longer needed or will not function correctly. Furthermore, additional provisions are needed to implement the relevant provisions of the agreements relating to lawyers. As such, we require new legislation to correct those deficiencies.
The draft instrument will revoke the 2019 regulations and the 2019 amendment regulations, as well as the domestic legislation that implemented the lawyer-related EU directives, subject to the transitional provisions required to implement the arrangements relating to lawyers in the agreements. Those are the European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 and the European Communities (Lawyer’s Practice) Regulations 2000.
The lawyers’ services directive and lawyers’ establishment directive will no longer apply to the UK. There will be no system of reciprocal arrangements under which EU and EFTA lawyers—including UK nationals holding EU-EFTA qualifications—can provide regulated legal services and establish on a permanent basis in the UK and vice-versa for UK lawyers in the EU, so it is a balanced arrangement. The instrument therefore remedies a deficiency in retained EU law as such law makes provision for reciprocal arrangements with the EU that will no longer exist, while ensuring that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and the other previously mentioned agreements.
As I have indicated, EU and EFTA lawyers will be treated in the same way as other third-country lawyers who wish to practise in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. The instrument will also implement provisions in the EU withdrawal agreement and EEA-EFTA separation agreement that allow applications made before the end of the transition period to join one of the legal professions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland to be completed under the current rules.
In addition, the instrument will implement provisions in the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement for Swiss lawyers within the scope of that agreement—who are established, registered and providing services in England and Wales or Northern Ireland under their Swiss professional title—to retain their current rights, so long as they remain registered. The instrument will also implement a transition period of four years from the end of the transition period for Swiss lawyers to register as an REL and practise under their Swiss professional title, or to apply to join one of the legal professions in England and Wales or Northern Ireland under the terms of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.
Additionally, the instrument will implement provisions that allow lawyers who are established and employed in Switzerland to continue to provide temporary services under the lawyers’ services directive for up to 90 days in a year, for at least five years, when under a contract agreed and started before the end of the transition period. The instrument will also implement provisions in the agreements to facilitate regulator-to-regulator co-operation in relation to applications for admission to the host state legal profession, and in relation to registration and regulation of an REL under the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The instrument will make further provision to enable regulators in England and Wales and Northern Ireland to complete any ongoing disciplinary proceedings against EU and EEA-EFTA lawyers that commenced before the end of the transition period.
To conclude, the regulations are a necessary element of preparation for the end of the transition period, and I commend them to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve briefly under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It is quite a sad business that we have to spend so much of our time preparing for the potential of no deal at the end of the transition period.
The Minister has still given us full value in outlining what the statutory instrument means. As he said, it ensures that the applications of EU lawyers who apply to practise law across England, Wales and Northern Ireland before the end of the transition period can have their applications properly considered. As he said, the instrument also protects the rights of Swiss lawyers who have been practising law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland before the end of the transition period, and implements a transition of four years after Brexit for Swiss lawyers to register and practise law across the three countries, as well as allowing cross-border co-operation between England, Wales, Northern Ireland, legal regulators and EU regulators.
I see no need to go into much detail about what these technical changes mean—the Minister has done that in tremendous detail—but we have to recognise that the regulations ensure that foreign lawyers who apply to practise here can continue to do so in future, when we will need the benefit of their skills and expertise. I am sure it will be interesting to see how the legal system operates in relation to lawyers after the end of the transition period on 31 December, when we will see an end to the preferential treatment of EU and EEA-EFTA lawyers compared with lawyers across the rest of the world.
It is clear that the Minister agrees with me that it is important that people from overseas are able to practise in this country and that we remove the impediments created by our leaving the EU to allow anyone who has already applied to join one of our legal professions to do so. The regulations have the important provision to allow existing lawyers to be properly subject to disciplinary proceedings that might have been started against them in recent times.
I hope the Minister also agrees that it is only right that we meet all our obligations under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, even though many on the Government Benches would simply rip it up and happily break international law. I seek his confirmation that it is the intention of the Ministry of Justice to honour the law. I would be obliged if he gave us an insight into how the Government will ensure that equally robust measures are put in place to ensure that people from across the wider world seeking to practise here are properly qualified to do so and will be subject to the same standards and codes as UK lawyers. Having dealt with that, I can confirm to the Minister that the Opposition will not oppose the regulations.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support for these necessary regulations. Yes, the United Kingdom recognises that we are an open society, particularly when it comes to legal practice, and we want that to continue. We want to be a country that continues to attract the brightest and best lawyers from around the world, as long as they are, as he rightly indicates, properly qualified and this is the appropriate place for them to practise.
We will continue to remain an attractive part of the world, because we believe in upholding the rule of law. Long may that continue. I thank members of the Committee for their valuable contributions to the debate, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Modern Slavery
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Today, the Government have published their response to the transparency in supply consultation. A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and it will also be published on gov.uk.
The landmark transparency provisions in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 established the UK as the first country in the world to require businesses to report annually on their work to prevent and address risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. This legislation was introduced to empower investors, consumers and civil society to hold businesses to account, and it has since sparked an international trend for supply chains legislation.
I am proud that thousands of businesses have risen to the challenge of reporting and consistently raised the benchmark for transparency since the Act came into force. This year the Government joined the private sector in opening up about their supply chains, becoming the first country in the world to publish a Government modern slavery statement setting out how we are leveraging public spending to prevent risks in Government supply chains and drive responsible practices. In his foreword to the statement, the Prime Minister made the Government’s ambitions clear:
“It’s not enough for Government and businesses to simply say they don’t tolerate modern slavery. As we take stock of both the challenges faced and achievements made, we must match our words with actions.”
Five years on from the Act, it has become more important than ever that businesses take responsibility for their supply chains, and I am committed to ensuring this Government maintain their global leadership on this agenda. In May 2019, the final report of the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, led by Frank Field, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE, considered the Act’s transparency legislation alongside four other key areas and made a compelling case for change. In response, the Home Office launched a public consultation seeking views on a range of measures to strengthen section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act and enhance the impact of transparency.
I am grateful for the expertise of the reviewers and of those who responded to the consultation. Today, I am proud to announce the ambitious package of measures we will be taking forwards to strengthen and future-proof the Modern Slavery Act’s transparency legislation.
To improve transparency, we will be requiring all organisations caught by the Act to publish their statement to a central Government-run reporting service, to ensure organisations’ work to prevent modern slavery is open to scrutiny. At the same time, we will be introducing mandatory topics that modern slavery statements must cover, to increase transparency and encourage year on year improvement in key areas. Taken together, these measures will drive a race to the top, ensuring progress is recognised and gaps are addressed.
To improve compliance, we will introduce a single reporting deadline on which all statements must be published. We are also considering options for civil penalties for non-compliance forwards in line with the development of the single enforcement body for employment rights, led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Finally, we will be extending the reporting requirement to public bodies—a global first. Leveraging public spending is a crucial step towards driving responsible practices and identifying risks, and I welcome the voluntary efforts of many public sector organisations on this agenda. Like businesses, public sector organisations have a responsibility to be transparent about modern slavery risks in their supply chains and how these are being addressed. Ministerial Government Departments have already committed to publishing annual modern slavery statements, the first of which will be published in September 2021.
Many of these measures are global firsts. However, I am determined that Government and industry do everything possible to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation. Tackling modern slavery remains a priority for the Government and I will continue to look at what further measures are needed to strengthen our response, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, law enforcement, business, public sector organisations, NGOs, civil society and the independent anti-slavery commissioner.
[HCWS463]
UK’s Future Trading Relationship with the US: Negotiations
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The fourth UK-US free trade agreement (FTA) negotiating round took place from 8 September to 18 September 2020.
There were 29 sessions held in this round, covering 16 different chapter areas. Significant progress has been achieved since launching negotiations in May 2020, and most chapter areas are now in the advanced stages of talks.
In total, 132 sessions have been held over the past four negotiating rounds, as well as an additional 30 inter- sessional discussions, involving officials from 20 different UK Government Departments and agencies.
In the fourth round, both sides continued to have detailed textual discussions, and negotiators are now in the process of consolidating texts in the majority of chapter areas.
Shortly before the fourth negotiating round both sides exchanged their first tariff offers, allowing a series of detailed market access discussions to be held during the round.
The exchange of tariff offers is a notable milestone, and the speed at which this stage has been reached demonstrates the momentum behind these negotiations.
Both sides reiterated their commitment to continue negotiations at pace throughout the Autumn in advance of the US presidential elections.
The fifth round of talks will take place in mid to late October, with additional intersessional discussions taking place between the fourth and fifth rounds. Further such talks will be held this week on telecommunications, intellectual property, market access, and rules of origin.
Below is a summary list of those workstreams discussed in the round:
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)
Customs and trade facilitation
Competition
Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
Market access
Financial services
Good regulatory practice
Rules of origin
Investment
Economics
Cross border trade in services
Industrial subsidies
Sectoral annexes
Core text
Trade remedies
State owned enterprises
[HCWS461]
Gender Recognition Act 2004
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
Today, I am announcing the Government’s response to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
As a Government, we are determined that everyone in the UK should be free to live their lives and fulfil their potential regardless of their sex, gender identity, race or disability.
We are proud to have introduced same-sex marriage and passed the Turing law.
We want transgender people to be free to live and to prosper in a modern Britain. We have looked carefully at the issues raised in the consultation, including potential changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
It is the Government’s view that the balance struck in this legislation is correct, in that there are proper checks and balances in the system and also support for people who want to change their legal sex.
However, it is also clear that we need to improve the process and experience that transgender people have when applying for a gender recognition certificate—making it kinder and more straightforward. Our changes will address the main concerns that trans people themselves tell us they have about it.
In 2017, we conducted by far the largest survey ever of British LGBT people, with over 108,000 respondents, of whom 7,000 were trans. Of those who had completed their transition, around two in five said that they had a gender recognition certificate, a higher proportion than is often believed. The survey then asked those who had not applied what had prevented them from doing so. They were able to choose as many reasons as they wanted.
Some 38% told us the process was too bureaucratic. So we will place the whole procedure online. Some 34% said the process was too expensive. This, too, we will address. We will reduce the fee from £140 to a nominal amount.
We have also come to understand that gender recognition reform, though supported in the consultation undertaken by the last Government, is not the top priority for transgender people. Perhaps their most important concern is the state of trans healthcare. Trans people tell us that waiting lists at NHS gender clinics are too long. I agree, and I am deeply concerned at the distress it can cause. That is why we are opening at least three new gender clinics this year, which should see waiting lists cut by around 1,600 patients by 2022. The full benefit of the increases in clinical capacity that we have been able to secure will lead to greater patient choice, shorter waiting times, better geographical coverage and easier access. It will also make it easier to fulfil the medical requirements of obtaining a GRC.
It is why we last year provided funding for the UK’s first national LGBT health adviser to help improve transgender people’s experience.
Britain leads the world as a country where everybody is able to lead their life freely and treated with respect and that, for many years, transgender people have been widely accepted in British society: able to use facilities of their chosen gender; and able to participate fully in modern life.
At the heart of this is the principle of individual liberty. Our philosophy is that a person’s character, their ideas, and their work ethic trumps the colour of their skin or their biological sex. We firmly believe that neither biology nor gender is destiny.
The Equality Act 2010 clearly protects transgender people from discrimination. The same act allows service providers to restrict access to single sex spaces on the basis of biological sex if there is a clear justification.
We want every individual, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity to have the confidence and the freedom to be themselves. We will continue with our international leadership by hosting our international LGBT conference to make sure LGBT people around the world are safe to be themselves.
I am laying the analysis report of consultation responses as a Command Paper today and it will be published on gov.uk.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions- answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/ 2020-09-22/HCWS462/.
[HCWS462]
Grand Committee
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touchpoints before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House—as there may well be this afternoon—the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The time limit for this debate is three hours. I notify Members of the Grand Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, will not be speaking this afternoon.
Brexit: Refugee Protection and Asylum Policy (EUC Report)
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: refugee protection and asylum policy (48th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 428).
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity today to debate the EU Committee’s report, Brexit: Refugee Protection and Asylum Policy. The report was produced by the former EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee. As the chair of that committee, I would like to thank its members for their contributions to this report and those who provided written and oral evidence to the committee. I also thank the committee’s secretariat as it was constituted at the time—Pippa Patterson, Megan Jones and George Stafford—for their help with the inquiry and preparation of this report.
The report was published on 11 October 2019. As a result of the disruption caused by the Covid pandemic, we are debating it only today, but the concerns it raises about refugee protection and asylum policy are as important as ever. The Government replied to the report on 16 March and a further reply, as well as a reply to a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, chair of the successor committee, was received earlier this afternoon. I am afraid I have not studied it in detail, but no doubt the Minister will be able to summarise it in winding up the debate.
The EU Committee of the House of Lords has a long -standing interest in the area of asylum and international protection. Through its scrutiny and inquiry work, the Home Affairs Sub-Committee examined EU policy and legislation in this field, including in our 2016 investigation into the plight of unaccompanied refugee children. The work of scrutinising asylum and refugee protection matters, among others, is now in the hands of the EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, from whom we shall hear later in this debate.
The Home Affairs Sub-Committee undertook its inquiry, which led to this report, because we were concerned by the lack of attention paid to refugees and asylum seekers in the Brexit context. We therefore decided to examine how they may be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the common European asylum system, especially in the event of no deal. We also considered how leaving the common European asylum system would affect the UK’s asylum system and explored priorities for future UK-EU asylum co-operation, including a possible UK-EU agreement and bilateral co-operation with individual member states. As well as taking evidence from a range of witnesses in the UK, we visited Oslo to learn more about how Norway, as a European country outside the EU, works with the EU in the area of asylum and migration management.
The report’s findings raised clear and significant concerns about refugee and asylum policy in the context of Brexit. It concluded that the most significant implication of leaving the common European asylum system would be the loss of a safe, legal route for the reunification of separated refugee families. In particular, the committee was concerned about a potential reduction in the rights of vulnerable unaccompanied children, who would have more limited reunification rights under UK Immigration Rules than under the Dublin system.
The report therefore concluded that there remains a clear, shared interest in maintaining UK-EU asylum co-operation after Brexit, ideally as part of a wider strategic partnership on migration, in order to help manage the flow of people from one end of Europe to the other. Secondly, the report concluded that continued UK-EU co-operation will help to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees, some of the most vulnerable groups in society, can exercise their right to claim asylum and receive the support they need to rebuild their lives and integrate into new communities in a timely and humane way.
The report then summarised how a future UK-EU asylum relationship should operate. It should take the Dublin system as its starting point, establish a framework for the speedy resolution of family reunion cases, maintain all routes to family reunion available under the Dublin system, together with robust procedural safeguards to minimise delays in reuniting separated refugee families, include a returns mechanism, ideally based on continued UK access to the Eurodac database of the fingerprints of asylum seekers, and have at its heart a shared commitment to uphold minimum standards for refugee protection, asylum procedures, qualification and reception conditions.
Relevant to the committee’s concern that Brexit could reduce the family reunion rights of unaccompanied children, the committee also called for UK family reunion rules to be expanded to allow refugees in the UK to bring their adult children to join them and to allow unaccompanied refugee children to sponsor their parents. Every country in the European Union does this. We reiterated the finding of our 2016 report that there was no evidence to support the UK Government’s belief that allowing children to sponsor their parents would encourage people to send children to Europe alone in order to act as an anchor for other family members. I should like here to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for all his efforts over many years to protect the rights of refugee children and for the valuable evidence that he gave to our committee.
The committee also concluded that UK Ministers should moderate the language they use when discussing asylum issues and should take pride in, and be vocal advocates for, protecting refugees from persecution. While directed at the UK Government, this recommendation is relevant across the EU where, since the 2015 refugee crisis, there has been an increasing tendency to present legitimate asylum seekers as a threat and as people to be feared.
The report also addressed the important question of what should happen if the EU and the UK do not reach agreement on these matters by the end of the transition period if there is no deal. In those circumstances, it proposed an interim agreement to ensure that separated refugee families do not find themselves in legal limbo and at risk of falling into gaps in the system. We suggested that a temporary extension of current family reunion arrangements would be the most feasible option.
The Government’s response to our report contained some positive elements. Reflecting some of the report’s conclusions, it said that that the Government were committed to seeking
“a close partnership with the EU on matters of asylum and … migration.”
It also reiterated the Government’s commitment, first set out in the Command Paper on the negotiations in February this year, to negotiate a reciprocal agreement for family reunion of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in either the EU or the UK. However, the response did not comment on whether the Government plan to seek an interim agreement to support refugee family reunion if a deal with the EU is not reached on migration and asylum by the end of the transition period. Nor did it state whether the Government are committed to ensuring minimum standards for refugee protection in a future agreement with the EU. Perhaps the report received this afternoon addresses those points.
Since the report was published, there has been activity and some movement in the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. However, we are now scarcely more than three months away from the end of the transition period and, to date, no agreement has been reached between the parties on asylum and refugee policy. Of particular concern is the fact that the EU negotiators are reported to have said earlier this month that they do not have a mandate to negotiate the Government’s draft agreement on unaccompanied migrant children.
Next Tuesday, the Home Office Minister from the Commons with responsibility for asylum and immigration will appear before the EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee to answer questions on the state of the negotiations on these issues. I hope the Minister’s answers will provide reassurance and some certainty, not only to members of the EU Committee and, indeed, the House, but also to asylum seekers and migrants and those who help them.
The questions posed by asylum seekers and by refugees will not go away. The countries they come from may change, as may the routes they take. It may take a disastrous fire at the Moria centre on Lesbos to force the issue to the top of our minds or, nearer to home, at the other end of the refugee trail, it may take the death of a young refugee in the channel. We are talking here of fellow human beings, often with appalling stories to tell. I know the Minister recognises this. We all need to. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I give a very warm and enthusiastic welcome to this report. It is excellent and will be enormously helpful in our future debates on the whole topic, including Report stage of the immigration Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, with whom I have had a number of disagreements, has been very helpful. She is open to discussion, is very conciliatory and has made it easy for us to engage with her, even if, in the end, we are not totally in agreement with her.
The recent tragic fire in Moria camp on Lesbos has been a shock to all of us. I visited Moria about a year and a half ago. It then had 10,000 people in it, having had an original capacity of 2,000. It was a shocking place. It was very overcrowded and probably already a powder keg at that point, so it was not surprising to me that there was a fire and the world was able to see the situation there as, indeed, the world has at intervals been able to see the situation in Calais. I have also visited there and, again, the conditions for the people sleeping under trees and awnings are pretty depressing.
I believe, as the report makes clear, that there is a need for an immediate UK response. We should say to Greece and France that we will take children with family reunion applications with entitlements to apply here. Surely, we should respond to the plea for help from the Greek Government. They made it some time before the fire and again now in light of the fire. Other countries have offered help—the Germans, the French and so on. We should share responsibility as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, in introducing the debate, talked about the implications of there being no deal or just a limited deal. When I put this point to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, some little while ago, she said that the Government’s policy was to achieve a deal and therefore the no-deal situation was not one she wanted to comment on. I hope I am not putting the wrong words into her mouth. We are getting nearer and nearer to the point where there may be no deal and this could have tragic consequences for the basis we have been working on, the Dublin treaty, which has been very positive and helpful.
Can the Minister tell us what the present state is of the EU/UK negotiations? The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made it clear that just recently Brussels had said that it did not have the powers to negotiate on this issue on behalf of the 27. That would mean that our Government would have to negotiate with each individual country, which is a pretty depressing task. Can the Minister tell us something more positive about it?
The Government frequently say that there are numbers of refugees coming here—although I am bound to say when the Minister gives numbers most of those have crossed illegally, there being an absence of legal paths to safety—but the numbers reaching this country are very low compared with France and Germany and tiny compared to those arriving in Greece, Italy and Malta. Our location is simply a geographical accident rather than any matter of policy.
I think we have been shocked recently that rescue boats in the Mediterranean that have picked up people who were in dangerous dinghies were being refused permission to land in some countries. That is a depressing outlook for Europe—all European countries should share responsibility. Even if we are not members of the European Union, it is the case now, and will be more so after 1 January, that we should still share responsibility for refugees. It affects all European countries, whether in the EU or not. The Germans have stepped in, and so have the French and other countries. We should also say publicly that we as a country are willing to share some responsibility. I would like the Government to give a public assurance that they will co-operate with the EU countries to see how we can all together, each country, help in this.
The report praises the Dublin system as being the best way forward. It does, of course, have time limits. It also has within its provisions the ability to return asylum seekers who are already registered in another country. If we do not continue with some form of agreement like the Dublin system, we will be left even without that safeguard, which the Government want. I appreciate that the EU is talking openly about a replacement for the Dublin treaty. I do not know what that will include, but I hope it will be positive and I hope we will be part of it. Certainly, to establish UK/EU co-operation post-Brexit, we will need to have good will. We will need to ensure that we remain friends with EU countries. We cannot deal sensibly with asylum seekers and refugees unless we have a basis of good will. I welcome the report’s indication that Dublin should be the starting point.
I believe the Government will say that they are planning to have a single global refugee resettlement programme. I welcome that, although it depends a bit on the numbers that will be involved and its scope. Will it include children who are currently in EU countries? Otherwise it leaves a gap. The Dublin treaty filled that gap, but it will no longer be there. I hope the Government will tell us that the single global refugee resettlement programme will include the ability for us to take refugees from France and Greece. Given that it will consolidate a number of existing schemes, I hope it will be wide enough to do that.
One of the things in the report is almost a plea that the EU should move with speed and efficiency in dealing with asylum applications. There have been very long time lags. I hope that the Home Office can speed up the process. I welcome the comments in the report that there should be better co-operation on these issues between local government and the NGOs that are working in this field. They need to be involved more in the policies that are being put forward.
The report mentions guardianship. That is a debate in itself. I have discussed this with local authority leaders. I think it is a good idea, but there is a question of resources. In some countries, guardians are simply well-meaning individuals; in other countries where they have the guardianship idea, they use qualified social workers. Our mood would be that we should look to qualified social workers to become guardians. They could adopt a holistic approach to looking at all the issues that affect an unaccompanied refugee child. They can provide the help, support and advice necessary. There is a whole issue there that needs more debate.
Finally, I welcome the comment towards the end of the report’s recommendations that urges the Government to moderate the language used when discussing asylum issues. That is essential. We need public opinion on our side to understand what the issues are, why we are doing this, why it is humanitarian for us to do it, and why this should never be at the expense of dealing with homeless people, homeless children or others who are already in this country. It is not one or the other but both, and we should be broad-minded enough to be able to do that. However, the language used is important and it will gain public acceptance for the policy. I welcome this report with enormous enthusiasm.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
It is such a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, because it was his amendment that came before the House of Lords four years ago. At that time, the amendment was to accept 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children, and when it was put to a vote in the Lords we won by 300 to 200. So we were looking forward to that. However, the House of Commons and the Government themselves then overturned that vote, with 294 MPs defeating the 276 who wanted to support the amendment. The sad thing I remember about the vote in the Lords was to see the Government Benches opposite—I was sitting on the Front Bench that afternoon—trooping through to vote in the Not-Content Lobby. It was so sad to see so many of them, many of them friends of mine, voting against allowing these children into the United Kingdom.
You may say that things have changed since, but I do not know that they have. Three or four weeks ago we had the fire on Lesbos, which destroyed the homes and possessions of 13,000 immigrant people. I asked the Minister only last week what we had done to assist the people who were in that fire and lost all their possessions. I am still waiting for an answer. This is about the attitude we have as much as anything else—about our approach. Are we a people who are welcoming, or a people who somehow or other think we are defending ourselves? It is very sad. I know that there are figures; some people would say that our Government have done some good things, and they have, but we are trying to resolve a question.
The Government have a hostile mentality. They think that we can really build a wall between us and the problem itself, but it will become far more serious. As climate change proceeds, a lot of land that supplied the needs of the population, particularly in Africa, will be turned into desert and they will look for some other place to go. We who are currently able to support ourselves—who knows what will happen in the future?—will have to find a way to meet those needs. Instead of trying to keep the barriers up, we need to lead, think and innovate.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
In speaking of the future and the planning needed to accommodate all those people who will be leaving their natural countryside and looking for somewhere to survive, having a Government who are ready to think along these lines and prepare for the mass migration to continue is the only way we will tackle this problem. We are coming out of our relationship with Europe and will lose all the advantages, such as Dublin and crossing borders. We have brought a terrible feeling of uncertainty on ourselves.
I go back to the choir. The night when we had the vote in the House of Lords and accepted the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we gathered together and said, “Well, what can we do to at least help the situation?” We had been round parts of Wales looking for a way to accommodate children, expecting that we might get 3,000 of them. We even thought of having a children’s village for refugee children. There were so many things that we must think about. In the end, we formed a choir. Of course, as a Welshman, I am always in favour of a choir. We formed a choir of refugees and their friends. In those three years, we have had more than 100 singers from 27 countries, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.
I remember the day that the choir started and that first rehearsal. I remember the look of joy and hope on people’s faces. In the first year, we took them to the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod, where they sang on the open air platform. After that, a 14 year-old lad from Afghanistan came to me and said, “Do you know, that was the best day of my life.” Is that not what life is about? It is not always about just the dry mechanics; it is about giving people hope or despair. I am afraid about the present Government’s attitude—already they have spoken in the past week about deporting thousands of people. Their answer is always deportation; it is never about meeting the problem and trying to resolve it.
I ask the Government, and will do so again and again, whether the present situation in the Home Office regarding immigration procedures is fit for purpose. If they say no, please can they confer with others? Look at the voluntary situation; look at churches: they are doing a tremendous lot and can help a lot in resolving this problem. This report shows what could happen after Brexit and so on, but please, let it not be the last. Let us look again, with hope, and pass on that hope to so many people who, at the present moment, are in deep despair.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in welcoming this report. I wish to put on record how fortunate we are to have colleagues like the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Dubs, in this House. Their campaigning and compassion are genuinely inspirational.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Williams, who will reply to this debate. She is both noble in her dealings and, indeed, a friend, but more importantly, I know that she is genuinely committed to compassionate policy-making. I look forward to hearing what she says.
I start with the closing words of the summary of the European Union Committee report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. It urges
“Ministers to moderate the language they use when discussing asylum issues.”
It reminds us succinctly that the UK
“has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need, and should be a vocal advocate for protecting refugees from persecution.”
Further, it stresses that the Government
“should have the confidence publicly to challenge those who seek to present genuine asylum seekers as a threat and something to be feared.”
That climate of fear and demonisation, promulgated over the years by sections of the press and, sadly, even some in politics, has meant that we as a country seem to have lost touch with the very basis of humanity and human rights as enshrined in the UN Convention on Refugees and subsequent protocol, which formed the basis of a common European asylum standard and response.
Britain has a long and proud history as an architect of human rights frameworks, whether that is in the proposing and drafting of international conventions; by developing national legislation and case law to implement our obligations; by being strong advocates at the UN—something that I have been a part of; and by being one of the largest funders of the International Criminal Court. So, it is troubling that Brexit, which, as many argued, was an opportunity for us as a country to establish and espouse our unique British values, appears in these negotiations and others as a moment when we seem to be backsliding on our international obligations.
We should not be seen as a country that was attached to our international humanitarian obligations only through some form of duress via our membership of the European Union. Instead, we should, in negotiations, set standards that are true to our values of protecting the most vulnerable; and no one can doubt the vulnerability of unaccompanied minors who find themselves on European shores. In giving evidence to the committee, Beth Gardiner-Smith, the CEO of Safe Passage, said that
“there are just under 5,000 unaccompanied children currently in Greece, the majority of whom currently live in unsafe and inappropriate accommodation”,
and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, how in more recent times this has become worse. This accommodation might include temporary accommodation and open camps. She went on to say:
“It can even include what is called protective custody, which is essentially a mattress on the floor of a police cell because no other accommodation is available.”
Even under the current system, research from Safe Passage shows that
“children awaiting family reunion have to wait up to 16 months from the point of applying for family reunion to finally being relocated”.
As we approach another partial lockdown six months after the previous one was imposed, in which most of us, for the first time in our lives, experienced the trauma of not being able to see and meet our children and other loved ones, we should be more aware of and more able to understand the pain of separation. The Covid pandemic, a virus for which there is yet no cure, is difficult enough to accept, but what we are talking about is separation created by us—by people, by Governments, by states—and forced on some of the most vulnerable children in Europe, forcing them into the arms of those who seek to exploit.
The committee was explicit in its support of the Government’s aim to establish a new strategic relationship with the EU on asylum and illegal migration and the framework for asylum co-operation set in the July 2018 White Paper on the future of the UK-EU relationship. However, what concerned the committee—and indeed me—is that our statements have, over time, been more cautious and less ambitious. Whether it was the lack of any reference to future UK-EU asylum co-operation in the November 2018 political declaration, or the breakdown of more recent discussions this summer, it appears that Brexit has become a trigger for a less humane policy. It seems increasingly likely that separated families and unaccompanied children will, from 1 January, have to make their case within a more complex and restrictive immigration process.
I have only one question for my noble friend: can she categorically assure the House that, as of 1 January 2021, vulnerable children and other separated family members will have the same routes and rights available to be reunited with their loved ones as they have now? I hope that, in answering, she can reaffirm the Government’s commitment to a humane asylum policy in line with a long and historic British tradition.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the EU Committee, whose report is comprehensive, clear and informative; it is really quite excellent. I want to put a number of questions to the Minister. No doubt her wind-up speech will respond quite automatically to some of them but, in so far as that is not possible, I wonder whether the officials might respond to some of the unanswered questions today.
As the report says, a UK withdrawal from the Dublin system after Brexit would result in,
“the loss of a safe, legal route for the reunification of separated refugee families in Europe”,
as my noble friend Lord Jay quoted. In a no-deal scenario, the impact on refugees really could be appalling. Can the Minister give an assurance that a temporary extension of the current arrangements will be put in place in the event of no deal until a satisfactory alternative system can be generated? It does not seem a lot to ask.
Very concerning is the fact that the UK does not participate in the family reunification directive, under which the participating EU countries have common rules governing the exercise of the right to family reunification by their country nationals, including special rules for refugees. The report points out that:
“The Government has indicated its intention to establish a new strategic relationship on asylum and migration with the EU—replicating some of the key principles of Dublin”.
I emphasise “some”. Can the Minister indicate which principles the Government do not plan to include in their new strategy, and why not?
I share the concern of the committee about a potential reduction in the reunion rights of vulnerable unaccompanied children; a number of noble Lords have already referred to this incredibly upsetting issue. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will actually increase the protection against disruption to family reunion afforded by the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and can she spell out what the additional protections will be? Future UK-EU asylum co-operation should include a framework for the speedy resolution of refugee family reunion cases, ideally based on continued UK access to the Eurodac database. Can she give the House any information about these issues?
Can the Minister comment on the conclusions of David Bolt, the UK Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? He said—I thought very tellingly—that
“the Department had handled family reunion applications as if they were visit visa applications”,
and that the Home Office had been
“too ready to refuse family reunion applications on the basis of insufficient evidence”,
instead of giving the applicant more time to produce more evidence, which might result in a much fairer and more efficient outcome. Bolt made the point that the readiness to refuse came from seeing these applications as “the wrong thing”. I do not fully understand all that, but it certainly sounds deeply worrying. Despite an improvement following the Bolt report, evidence from other witnesses shows that stakeholders continue to have significant concerns over the process for reuniting refugee families in the UK.
Probably the most upsetting aspect of the refugee tragedy is the fact that unaccompanied children are not allowed to sponsor their parents to come to the UK. The Refugee Council said that these restrictions condemned some of those children never to see their family members again. I find that shocking. Can we really continue with such a policy? I think not.
Not quite as bad as the position of unaccompanied children, but nevertheless also unacceptable, is the rule that family reunification does not allow so-called non-dependent children to be reunified with their families in the UK. What this means in practice is, of course, that the family has to leave behind an 18 year-old or so daughter or son, and we know that, in a number of countries, a daughter on her own with no family protection at all could be in serious jeopardy. Again, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that this will be dealt with.
The report rightly refers to the Home Office’s failures to assess the evidence available and its tendency to apply an
“excessively high standard of proof”
in family reunion cases. It also states that the Home Office regularly exceeds the time limit to conclude these cases under the Dublin regulation, and the time taken is, as we all know, no small matter. Delays can have long-lasting and serious impacts on the mental and physical health of vulnerable child refugees, who have already suffered enough before they arrive here.
An anomaly that should surely be sorted out when we leave the EU is that local authorities receive £25,000 over five years to support a child with a family who arrive through a resettlement scheme, but nothing to support an unaccompanied child and help with the costs of the care system. How can that be justified? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
Finally, lengthy periods of detention for asylum seekers need to be thought about. The Refugee Council noted that the UK was the only country in Europe that did not have a maximum time limit for immigration detention. As noble Lords know perfectly well, thousands of people are detained each year for long periods, costing £100 million annually and affecting the health and well-being of the detainees—and, of course, many of those are children. Again, do the Government plan to right this wrong? I sincerely hope so.
After all that, I suppose that I need to say something positive. I understand that the UK has a good record on implementing the refugee resettlement programmes. Indeed, I understand that the UK can claim to be a global leader in resettlement, so we are able to do things properly. I congratulate the Government on that success and hope that they can extend that good practice to the other areas that I have mentioned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has withdrawn from these proceedings, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am privileged to serve on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I can say that, in our time together, we have never had a single word of disagreement: we are united as one in condemning Bills which are mere skeletons or stuffed full of Henry VIII clauses or where the negative procedure is used instead of the affirmative. Now, I am not going to talk about unaccompanied children today, but I am certain that the noble Baroness will not agree with what else I have to say; I hope only that she will still speak to me when we meet tomorrow morning.
This is yet another authoritative report from one of our EU committees, but of course it is now two years old. Thus, in my contribution I want to ask my noble friend the Minister for an update on where we are with creating our own bilateral arrangements to replace the Dublin III regulation, which are described in the Government’s response to the report as “a comprehensive readmissions agreement”. Under that agreement, we would seek
“the return of EU, UK and third-country nationals who have entered the UK directly from an EU country, and vice versa.”
The response said that such an agreement would preferably be
“underpinned by continued access to Eurodac, or a similar biometric system”,
but this would be subject to negotiation with the EU. I would be grateful to hear from my noble friend the Minister how we are getting on with that.
The committee raised concerns that, if we leave the EU without the continuation of a Dublin-type agreement, it would be more difficult to control the numbers of illegals crossing to the UK. But, in my opinion, Dublin III is a joke; it is ignored by the EU in any case. There can be no legal or moral justification for illegal asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or anywhere else in Africa or the Middle East arriving in this country. Genuine asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country outside their own.
Let me make it clear: genuine asylum seekers are not a threat to anyone in this country and they should be welcomed. I deplore those who criticise genuine asylum seekers. But the problem is not helped when we have so many illegals crossing through Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Romania, Germany, Italy, Spain and eventually France for onward transmission to the UK. These people give a bad name to all the genuine migrants.
These people are not genuine asylum seekers; they are economic migrants who want a better life in this country. There is no harm in that, and anyone who wants to emigrate here for a better life should be able to do so. But we have the fundamental right who to take and who to reject, and I submit that we are not rejecting enough illegal seekers—or, rather, we are rejecting plenty, but we see masses of activist lawyers using every excuse and trick in the book to let them stay, even when all legal avenues have been exhausted so far. At the weekend, I read that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aiming to increase the number of illegals deported. Of course, the problem is that, as soon as the flight is about to leave, another bunch of lawyers pop up to stop it, no matter how many times the case has failed in the past.
Then we come to problem, which is never talked about, of French co-operation—or possible complicity. I am not sure how many millions we have given to the French authorities to strengthen defences against illegal crossings, but something is clearly not working. Note that the vast majority of crossings are made in good-quality RIBs. These rigid inflatable boats may be heavily overcrowded and dangerous, but they are all in pretty good condition with good outboard engines. Where do thousands of illegal asylum seekers get their hands on those? If I turned up in the north of France tomorrow, I would not be able to find a boat like that; I would not know where to go for one. They get them from the despicable racketeers who take money from these people for crossing over, stuff the boats full of far too many people who then drown or suffer. These racketeers must be getting the boats from legitimate suppliers.
I suggest that we work with the French to take action against all those businesses in the north of France selling rigid inflatable boats to asylum racketeers. Does anyone seriously suggest that the local French authorities do not know who is organising this locally or where these thousands of nice new RIBs come from? Are we asked to believe that these asylum seekers turn up not knowing a thing about northern France but miraculously discover all these boats that are ready for them?
Satellite images can show these boats being prepared and readied to be loaded. While I personally would have the SBS working the shores and taking out these boats before they set off, thereby saving the lives of those who would climb on board and possibly drown, I accept that that is too radical for Her Majesty’s Government. Therefore, we should pay the French to do it for us—and we will need to pay more than the racketeers are paying some of them to turn a blind eye.
Another bit of French possible complicity—which my noble friend dare not comment on either—is the authenticated reports that French government patrol boats were gently shoving boatloads of illegals into UK territorial waters, where the rescue service would take them to England and the life that they wanted. These actions are not by local officials in the Calais region, but by boats operated by the French Government. We may be outraged, but possibly we should not be surprised. The French Government have a problem with illegal asylum seekers in the camp at Calais and elsewhere on the French coast. Every time that they try to disperse them, they come back. So it is understandable that the French have concluded that the only way to deal with their Calais problem is to shove them on their way to England. Since many of these illegals have destroyed their passports or identity documents, it is exceptionally difficult to send them back. I urge the Government to seek a way forward on that.
I repeat that this country has always welcomed genuine asylum seekers and we want genuine immigration from skilled migrants. That is our fundamental duty and it is our history. But we need to redouble our efforts to stop all illegal and unjustified migration. As I said, economic migrants who have travelled through a dozen safe countries are not deserving and should not be classed as genuine asylum seekers, because they are destroying it for all the real, genuine ones.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, our shared history with Europe is important on many levels, going back further than the start of the EU and even before the Common Market. We have a great shared history of working together on cross-border co-operation and ensuring the best outcomes for people, whatever their status. This report highlights just how delicate a balance there is in maintaining that co-operation—working bilaterally, trilaterally and across many more countries—to fulfil our international obligations to help refugees and asylum seekers in their hour of need.
This is an issue that is not going to go away. Every day, boats are filled to overcapacity with migrants as they cross the channel, trying their very best to cross into our country and make their home here. Refugees and asylum seekers are often fleeing human rights abuses or persecution in their own country, and they are entitled to be treated humanely and with proper due process. This is not possible without the necessary accords between nations, underpinned by agreements, rules and legislation. Children, especially unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, are the most vulnerable in this situation and need our help unfettered by bureaucracy and red tape.
Therefore, having a good, solid working relationship with our European neighbours, especially those closest, such as France and Belgium, with regard to these matters cannot be left to some appendage to the negotiations taking place at the moment but must be first in line for discussions. However, it would appear that the previously agreed political declaration and the final withdrawal agreement contain an obligation only to lay a policy on the matter before Parliament. There is little concrete legal commitment from the Government on these issues.
Details of how this is going to work in practice, how children will be reunited with family members and how unaccompanied minors are dealt with should be clear now, so there is no room for problems to arise due to a lack of information at the end of the transition period. The Government have put forward that they will have a comprehensive readmission agreement in place of the existing Dublin III agreement for sorting things out between the UK and other EU countries, but the nuts and bolts of what exactly a comprehensive readmission agreement means should be published well ahead of the end of the transition period. Without details, we lack the means to make our borders safe while we assist and support refugees and asylum seekers, particularly children, who suffer the most in all these circumstances. It cannot and should not be left to be worked out once we are no longer bound by our EU treaty obligations and when we are completely separate from the present negotiations.
Can the Minister tell us, in the light of the likelihood of there being no properly agreed protocols and procedures in place after 1 January 2021, how the Government propose to deal with all the issues that will arise until they have a new agreement sorted out and safely in place? How will that comply with our international obligations to help people in these circumstances? How will those matters be dealt with if there is no deal?
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I start by noting my interest as declared in the Lords register and, of course, by praising and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his committee, on such a comprehensive, interesting and detailed report. There are very meaningful recommendations, many of which stand the test of time, despite the fact that we are debating this report one year after its publication.
I also thank and congratulate the many organisations in this country and elsewhere which work tirelessly every day to try to ensure that Governments stop treating children, particularly asylum and refugee children—displaced children—badly. Those in this country, such as UNICEF and the Refugee Council, and those abroad, such as UNICEF again, Save the Children, the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières, are all working tirelessly to try to ensure not just that human traffickers, racketeers, as mentioned earlier, and those involved in conflict but legitimate democratic Governments treat children better than they have in the past.
Over the years, I have visited a whole series of refugee camps and camps for the internally displaced, and I am constantly struck by two things. First, where those camps are either in the countries of origin or nearby countries—perhaps Syrians in Iraq or South Sudanese in Uganda—there is an absolute desire on the part of children to go home. They want to go back to the villages and towns and to help to rebuild them and to carry on their education, not to move to Europe or another continent to get a completely different life.
I was also struck in camps in Europe, such as the huge Cara di Mineo camp, which was the largest asylum seeker detention and organisation camp in Europe in its time, although it has now been closed by the Italian Government, by the children and young people there and the absolute horrors they have been through. It was sometimes because they had been sold by their families to human traffickers and sometimes because they themselves had been duped by human traffickers and taken on hazardous journeys. At other times, they had been caught up in movements away from conflict and violence and, along the way, had been raped, beaten, tortured, sold and sold again. They had been almost drowned and had watched others die while they survived and felt the guilt that comes from that. Those are the children and young people whom we talk about when we talk about asylum and refugee children.
That is why the UK, if the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister mean what they say about the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Government as a whole being a force for good in the world, needs to set high standards in this area and stick to them. We need to do better than we have done in the past under successive Governments not just under this Government.
First, will the Minister say what assessment the UK Government currently make of the situation for the more than 600,000 people in detention camps in Libya, with approximately 40,000 children, one-quarter of whom are unaccompanied? What assessment are we making of the way in which Europe, including ourselves, has in recent years financed the system around the Libyan coastguards, which seems simply to have encouraged human trafficking rather than discouraged it? Secondly, the recent tragedy in the Moria camp on Lesbos in Greece has already been mentioned. I understand from reports that unaccompanied children caught up in that horrific fire and therefore made homeless are being relocated. Is the UK involved in that process, and will we take our share of children who find themselves unaccompanied and homeless on the outskirts of Europe?
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I move on to the situation once people arrive here. I understand that the number of unaccompanied children in detention in the UK has reduced dramatically over the past decade, and that is to be welcomed and the Government deserve congratulations on it. However, the way in which we treat unaccompanied children arriving on these shores says an awful lot about who we are as a country. Therefore, I would be interested to know the up-to-date figures for 2019 for unaccompanied children, not only those who arrived in the UK but how many found themselves in detention, contrary to the Government’s firm commitment to end that process. Also, more recently, clearly there has been an issue of unaccompanied children being included in the boats arriving on the south-east coast. It is vital that the local authorities in that area be able to provide the correct level of support for them. What provision have the Government made to ensure that Kent Council and others are able to provide the necessary services to support those children, many of whom will be deeply traumatised and scared and may not even have any access to the English language?
Like others, I would be keen to have an update on the negotiations on replacing the regulations and the way in which the Government will take this issue forward. If we are to have sovereignty over our own laws in the future, perhaps this is an opportunity for us to have even better laws than we have had in co-operation and agreement with the European Union. I urge the Government to think positively about setting an example here. The UK should be a shining light around the world for understanding the importance of family reunion for the safety and security of children. We should be firmly committed to meeting our international obligations, and humanity should be at the core of our approach.
Finally, I want to touch on the situation in Glasgow and Scotland over 2020. There is much debate today in Parliament and elsewhere about the potential for another lockdown and its impact on citizens throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There have been three deaths in the Glasgow area these past few months, not all directly related to lockdown but there is at least a suspicion that the conditions under which asylum seekers have been living under lockdown have contributed to in one case tensions, and in other cases the mental health problems of the individuals affected. I would be interested to know whether the Government have commissioned independent reports into the violent incident and the death at the Park Inn hotel in Glasgow and the two other deaths in Scotland this year. Will those reports be published? Have the Government received any correspondence from the Scottish Government about those incidents and will they publish that correspondence and any replies? Have any lessons been learned about how the asylum-seeker community in Glasgow in particular is managed and supported through this difficult period?
With these remarks I am happy to conclude, but I reiterate that the way in which we treat, support, house and look after child refugees and children who have become asylum seekers, especially those who are unaccompanied, in the UK and abroad will say an awful lot about us, and an awful lot about the 21st century and what kind of world we are. I hope that the UK Government will be a force for good in relation to that, as they have promised to be.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the UK has traditionally welcomed people from all over the world and gained by it. It took a lot of courage when the Government allowed the East African Asians to settle in the UK because of the decision taken by the Ugandan Government to expel all Asians. Similarly, many Asians left Kenya and Tanzania because of the changes in government policy on the nationalisation of banks, financial institutions, industries and large businesses. There are Members of this House and the other place who came from East Africa. Decades later we can see that, as UK citizens, the East African Asians have achieved many successes in businesses, professions, tourism and restaurants. They have contributed by paying taxes and creating new jobs, employing not only their own but the wider community.
People from other countries come to the UK for business, employment or when they are forced to leave their countries due to persecution from politicians there. Many flee from their own countries to save their lives. Among them are young children who wish to migrate to join their families in the UK. As we exit the EU this year, we should make provision for settlement of refugees, particularly young children who wish to join parents, siblings or members of their wider families. Look at the decision of the German Government to allow refugees from Iraq and Syria. Germany has gained people who are highly and professionally trained. [Inaudible.]
We should not endanger the lives of people fleeing other countries. We see daily reports of refugees in small boats crossing the channel from the continent to the UK on dangerous seas. I ask the Government to look at this issue not with suspicion but with humanity. Can the Minister provide figures on how many applications were received, granted and refused under paragraph 319X of the Immigration Rules?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are almost a year on from the European Union Committee’s excellent report on the impact of Brexit on refugee protection and asylum policy. We are now little more than three months away from the end of the Brexit transition period. The current situation is urgent and crucial.
No child or person wishes to leave their country. We should remember—and I hope everybody in the Government remember—that people leave because of climate change, civil war and war. More and more people will be on the move, as we know from global figures. Covid will make this even more difficult. We all must play our part and accept more refugees, particularly those from the camps where there have been fires and other misfortunes.
We are fast approaching a cliff edge. At the end of the transition period in December, the existing system of protection will have gone. No deal would leave us with nothing. A safe route for reunification of families will be gone. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would be prejudiced. At the same time, enforcement of the rules would become more difficult. Bilateral deals with France and Belgium would not be the answer. A United Kingdom deal with the EU as a whole is essential, generally and as soon as possible, in particular with respect to protection for asylum-seeking families and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
I was going to touch on a letter that my committee received this morning from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but I think I will leave that to my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who was going to speak before me. I will not touch on that but leave that to him.
Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have the privilege of chairing the Security and Justice Sub-Committee of the EU Committee, which has inherited responsibility for this and other subjects from my noble friend Lord Jay’s committee. Not for the first time in my career, I am following in my noble friend’s wake.
Frankly, I have been surprised and disappointed by how difficult it is to get useful information from the Government on the situation in the negotiations with the EU across a whole range of justice and security issues, and on plans if agreements are not possible. These questions get less attention in the media than trade and fisheries, but they are vital, because, as other noble Lords have said, they concern people’s lives and their safety and security, here and across the EU.
In my view, it has taken too long for this report, which we produced in October last year, to come to the House for debate. From rereading it, I am struck by how prescient it is and how close we are to some of the really unsatisfactory outcomes identified in it actually happening. However, my noble friend Lord Jay’s report and the debate today have finally extracted a letter from the Home Office, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, in response to one that my noble friend Lord Jay wrote in February. I also wrote a second letter in May. I have not had time to study it; we received it this morning. I hope it contains some useful information.
However, at the same time, we are told that the Home Office Minister, Mr Philp, who had been scheduled to give evidence to our committee next week on 29 September, has postponed that session. That is the second time he has declined to appear before our committee. We were told that he was very busy dealing with aspects of the Covid pandemic, which I understand, that negotiations with the EU were continuing and that he was not in a position to give us a meaningful update next week. I am new as a committee chairman, but I had not understood that it was for Ministers, when invited to appear, to decide whether they were in a position to give a committee a meaningful update. These negotiations with the EU, however they turn out, are now in their final weeks. Crucial issues are at stake in areas of refugee protection, asylum and many others. Ministers have a duty to come before Select Committees. It really is unacceptable to have repeated cancellations such as this. I hope the Minister will do all in her power to ensure that a Home Office Minister can appear before our committee next week on these important issues.
My noble friend Lord Jay and others referred to a report in the Guardian on 3 September that EU negotiators had rejected the UK’s proposal for an agreement on unaccompanied child asylum seekers because they had no mandate to agree one. That will be no surprise to anyone who listened to the evidence session we had with legal experts in July. Professor Elspeth Guild of Queen Mary University of London told us that the EU had no mandate because no one had thought to put into the November 2019 political declaration anything on this issue about unaccompanied child migrants. The UK had proposed a draft agreement, presumably knowing full well that there was no mandate on the EU side to negotiate it. However, the position is even worse than that, because since this is an area of exercised EU competence, individual member states are not competent to agree individual agreements with us either. We will clearly land up with no agreement on unaccompanied child migrants, and since it has been made clear that we are pulling out of the Dublin system altogether, we will arrive exactly where the report predicted last October, in a situation with no agreement.
I know that the Minister explained, in Committee on the immigration Bill, that the UK draft agreement lies on the table, but I fear that means tabled in the sense in the US Senate, where something that is tabled is consigned to oblivion. We need to understand from the Government what the arrangements will be to deal with unaccompanied child asylum seekers when we have completely left what one witness called the “tapestry of law” in the EU represented by the Dublin arrangements. Clearly, in that situation, the rights of unaccompanied child asylum seekers will be reduced. We have heard that the UK is the only country in Europe that does not provide for refugee children to sponsor close relatives. Dublin also gives unaccompanied children legal rights, for example, to appeal judgments and to have timelines for the resolution of their cases. All that will go.
One of the reasons given by Mr Philp for not coming before our committee next week was that he was busy dealing with the issue of small boat crossings of the channel. It seems to me that those two issues are linked. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that there is complicity among French officials and the French system with traffickers in this dreadful trade of sending people at high risk across the channel. However, I note that it is the Dublin regulation that gives the UK a legal base to return failed asylum seekers to countries such as France. Without that, we will not have the legal base. If we reduce the legal routes available for asylum seekers to this country, including children, surely more will try illegal routes to get here.
We need a comprehensive approach to refugee and asylum protection. We are still waiting to see the details of the proposed global resettlement scheme. Perhaps when she winds up the debate, the Minister can tell us when that will be published, because it is a crucial document.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate because we need it badly. I am obviously not alone in having felt uncomfortable for some time that the UK still has not reached a durable agreement with the EU on either asylum policy or much else. However, I was reassured by what my noble friend Lord Ricketts said; I know that he is on the case. Nor, in my view, has the UK taken its fair share of Europe’s asylum seekers, although I welcome the new global resettlement scheme following the Syrian and other programmes since the 2015 crisis.
We look across the channel and frown at the hostile attitude to migrants in some EU states until we realise that we may become one of those states. We can all agree that this is among the most urgent issues facing us. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Jay and the two committees on identifying so well the areas in which the Government still fall lamentably short—notably not turning up in committees.
I fully recognise that the EU is in difficulty. For example, it is unable to come to one mind on the new Dublin regulations. That is unsurprising given the dramatic increase in numbers in 2015 and the political shift toward xenophobia. I wish that the UK had been at the table, even now, as a member. We have been lucky to begin so many opt-outs, notably on Schengen, and we would have had much to offer in the joint programme post Brexit.
The report rightly urges HMG to make every effort to maintain effective border co-operation, especially in the event of no deal, but we know that the Home Office hesitates to agree with anything like joint responsibility beyond Calais and Zeebrugge, a route that is working well. Have we signed up to the latest version of Eurodac yet?
The Government’s response to the report is full of “We will do this and that” but even solemn promises and commitments, which we will hear again today, ring hollow because we are rapidly approaching the cliff edge. How can the Home Office expect anything but brickbats from this committee when it has been let down so much by the Government’s failure in the negotiations?
As we have known since the 1951 convention, asylum cases can frequently be a matter of life and death—we have heard examples of that—and should not be resolved on a chess board. Okay, illegals have to go, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is right to remind us, but there is much to be done to improve the rules governing the paperwork faced by genuine asylum seekers.
On resettlement, I hope that the Government will maintain this country’s reputation for hospitality. Back in the 1980s, I played a small part in the resettlement of Vietnamese boat people. I saw how human beings were kept like animals in three-tier cages at Hong Kong Airport, and I know at first hand of the remarkable British welcome to thousands of refugees. That was led by the churches and well assisted by local authorities, who are doing a lot today but not enough. The German Safe Harbours initiative is another current example of this warm public welcome. Today, we are seeing similar scenes in the Mediterranean and in the channel. I wish that the same spirit were there today but attitudes are changing and both our own official response and that of the EU are quite out of proportion to the magnitude of the crisis.
People keep saying that we need a new policy. In his recent Civitas report, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to the UK as a “spatially limited island” and called for a demographic authority to guide immigration policy. That sounds reasonable but, with the current fluctuations and uncertainties in migration, it may be impossible to arrive at such a policy. I recommend the latest Forced Migration Review for a fascinating critique of attempts to count up victims of slavery, trafficking and forced labour.
Family reunion, which has been mentioned, is a fast- growing element in migration. I know that we are already committed to receiving more of the most vulnerable unaccompanied minors under the Dubs Section 17 of the withdrawal Act and other rules, but they are individuals and, as we have heard, there is a question mark over the future of their families when we are no longer subject to the Dublin agreement. The UNHCR says that Dublin should become a “model” for future co-operation. I hope that the Minister will anticipate the EU deal and explain what is going to happen.
When we are outside the EU, as a developed country and a close neighbour, we are capable of playing an even bigger role in burden sharing, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rightly said and as the report recommends. In paragraphs 165 to 166, it says that
“if responsibility sharing does become an established feature of EU asylum policy, and if it is framed in a voluntary and non-binding way, we believe that it would be in the UK’s interest to participate in such measures. In so doing, the UK would demonstrate solidarity, good will, and a willingness to play its part in managing migration flows across the continent.”
I do not know who drafted those paragraphs but they seem to offer the Government an admirable and generous opportunity to introduce a new policy.
Finally, I thank the Library for its helpful commentary and my grandson Leo for sharing his useful and informative year 4 migration flow chart.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
One of the disadvantages of speaking late in a debate such as this one is that all one’s foxes have been shot. One of the advantages is that you usually get a chance to pick a fight. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was good enough to give me that chance with his reference to the French Government shoving people into boats on their way to England; unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, shot that fox rather magisterially.
I congratulate the committee on producing an excellent report 11 months ago. I will concentrate on just one aspect of it: family reunion. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council.
The report was premised on the assumption that the Government would seek to negotiate a successor arrangement to Dublin III as part of a future relationship treaty. It stressed the importance of success in that enterprise, warning that, without a successor arrangement, the only safe and legal route for separated refugee children would be lost. The report recommended:
“All routes to family reunion available under the Dublin System should be maintained in the new legal framework for cooperation, together with robust procedural safeguards to minimise delays in reuniting separated refugee families.”
I think we all agree with all of that, but none of it has happened. Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out, the political declaration that Mr Johnson agreed on 19 October, just after this report came out—which became the Commission’s mandate for the future relationship negotiation—contained no such ambition, with nothing at all on family reunion. We decided that we did not want what the political declaration promised—an overarching institutional framework with linked agreements in specific areas of co-operation—after all.
Our own proposals on refugees turned out to be all about requirements from the EU 27 to accept the return of asylum seekers whom we had rejected. Inevitably, those proposals were rejected. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is absolutely right: since the member states have empowered the Union to negotiate on their behalf in this area, they have disempowered themselves so it will not be possible to obtain bilateral agreements. We also seem to have given up on obtaining an agreement with the Union.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, that the situation she was describing in the event of no deal would be the same in the event of a deal because a deal will not cover asylum and family reunion. It is clear that, deal or no deal, we shall fall out of Dublin III in exactly 100 days’ time with no successor arrangements secured, which means, in the words of the report that “separated refugee families” are going to be left in “legal limbo.”
I have seen no sign of the single global resettlement programme which the Government promised to unveil this year, and all our existing resettlement schemes have been shut down because of the virus. I quite understand that, although some other countries seem to have restarted their schemes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when our scheme will reopen, but it will not help with family reunions previously arranged under Dublin III. In short, the worst-case scenario, which the report warned against, is coming true and I see no sign of the Government pursing the interim agreement which the committee recommended as a contingency fallback.
It could actually be even worse than the report suggests. My noble friend Lord Ricketts referred to the evidence given by Professor Elspeth Guild to his committee in July. I read it for the first time when preparing for this debate. She is a recognised national expert on immigration and asylum law and her evidence in July was impressive and depressing. She predicted all too plausibly that outside Dublin III and the common European asylum system
“the UK will develop a much harsher regime in respect of asylum seekers and children will find it increasingly difficult to come and join their family members in the UK”.
She also offered a solution: we need a provision in the immigration Bill providing a right for unaccompanied minors to join their families in the UK. That is her view and mine, and that is what is what we have it in our power to do. In Committee on the Bill last week, we debated introducing just such a provision and we will come back to it on Report next week. Even with an agreed replacement for Dublin III, it would have been highly desirable to have such a provision in the Bill. Now that we know we will not have a replacement for Dublin III, it is essential to have it in the Bill.
As a civilised country we cannot just do nothing, which would mean going backwards, regressing and forcing these children into legal limbo and physical jeopardy. With no legal right or route to family reunion, they will inevitably be more tempted by the traffickers. Do we really want to connive at that, becoming effectively the accomplice of the criminals? I really do not think so. I do not think the country wants it, and I do not think that will be the opinion of the House next week.
Before then, I hope the Minister will have some good news for us about Greece. In Committee on the Bill there was much discussion of the plight of the victims of the burning of the Moria camp, who are now sleeping rough on Lesbos. They include more than 400 unaccompanied children. As several of us— indeed, all who spoke last week—thought, there should be some positive UK response to the Greek Government’s appeal for help and sanctuary for these poor people. The appeal was not directed just at fellow EU member states. We are still fellow Europeans. The Germans have shamed us with the generosity of their response. They are going to take well over 1,000 refugees. I do not think we have yet said we are going to take any. Perhaps the Minister will put that right today.
In the discussions in Committee on the immigration Bill, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke of the good Samaritan. The victim the good Samaritan rescued was on the road to Damascus. Some of those we should be picking up now will be en route from Damascus, but the principle is probably the same. It would be the right thing to do. Among the more than 400 unaccompanied children now sleeping rough on Lesbos will be some hoping to join family members in this country. Could we not as a minimum do as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested this afternoon and identify them and pick them up? If the Minister does not have good news for us today on that, I hope she will when the House comes back to the Bill next week.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for his introduction. I am sorry not to have had the opportunity to serve under his chairmanship. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, will understand absolutely that that is not a comment on his chairmanship. Indeed, I share his disappointment on the timing of the response, the difficulty of obtaining information and the appearance, or not, of the Minister before the committee next week.
The year since the report was published must have seemed very long to the refugees and asylum seekers who are its subject, and it was a year in which progress has been undetectable. I hardly need to stress the importance of the issue. At a meeting of the EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee which has been mentioned, a witness said—the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, echoed this—that the causes of child migration were
“war, poverty, climate change and now the pandemic.”
I would add enormous human rights violations. He said:
“It is a deadly scenario”.
When we were debating this in Committee on the immigration Bill, the Minister referred to a
“draft legal text for a negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system which would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child and guaranteeing reciprocity … We have acted in good faith and hope the EU will do the same.”—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1076-77.]
Co-operation, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, is essential. I do not want to challenge the Minister’s good faith, but the text is a poor thing: there are eight very well-spaced pages of which are only four are substantive, and requests to and from the UK are discretionary. Perhaps I should say it was a poor thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I think, said, we are told that the Bill is still on the negotiating table, but neither then nor now was there any sign of it being urged forward. We have heard about the Catch-22 of this not being within the EU Commission’s negotiating mandate, but being a competence of the EU so that it is not open to member states to negotiate. This has emerged more into the public domain through a report in the press on 3 September, before we started in Committee on the immigration Bill, so a clarification on this will be welcome. Are we, or more importantly, the people affected in a Catch-22 situation? If we are, or whatever, what ways are being sought to go ahead with bilaterals, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked? How is that getting on?
The Government responded to this committee’s report that
“there is a real mutual interest in a close future partnership … ensuring safe and legal passage for the most vulnerable.”
Presumably that still stands, because creating safe and legal routes is the best way of tackling racketeering, smuggling, trafficking and the danger involved to dignity, a safe existence and life itself. It surely must include routes, not just from the Middle East. It is reported that there are 10,000 children missing in the EU.
Can the Minister therefore say what criteria the Government will be applying? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, let us come out of this with some good, humane arrangements. Surely what we end up with must include wide rights of family reunion. The current rules are inadequate, limited to “serious and compelling” family or other reasons, which make the exclusion of children “undesirable”—is not that exclusion always undesirable? That is coupled with a substantial fee for having family in the UK take on the care of a child, and they must have the means to do so. There is indeed discretion outside the rules. Can the Minister tell us how many applications have been received, how many have been granted and how many refused year by year since—to pluck a figure out of the air—2010? I do not expect her to have that information at her fingertips today, but it would be very helpful to have it by letter following this debate. It is unlikely that new agreements will be in place in three months’ time so, like other Members, I would be glad to be reassured about the position from January onwards—in particular, that “family” will not be interpreted in a narrower way than it is under Dublin.
Sometimes our debates on Brexit become quite technical; I would be the first to acknowledge the alphabet soup of EU acronyms. However, behind them all are individuals. All refugees and asylum seekers are vulnerable, to different extents, but by definition they are vulnerable, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, reminded us—she certainly reminded us of the importance of language. Enabling families to be together and good, wide sponsorship rules are the best basis for people to settle here in the widest sense of the term “settlement”. If the Minister tells us that all this would create a pull factor, I reject that, other than in very rare cases. On the contrary, I find it extraordinary what extreme situations people endure before it finally becomes too much; the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, alluded to that. A local authority as a corporate parent is not as good by a long way generally as a real parent, an uncle, aunt, grandparent or older sibling, and I have met some wonderful foster parents.
We know about the problems in Kent and the alarming prospect of the use of an IRC to accommodate children. We know that local authorities are cash-strapped. What are the Government doing to enable local authorities around the country to play their part?
Like much of the letter received early today, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred, the Government’s response to the report was rather complacent; the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made a similar point. It made reference to the role of local authorities, but without the recognition that they cannot be expected to magic resources out of thin air. Safe and legal routes should operate without challenge because the legal rights and obligations include specific obligations—under Dublin, at any rate—regarding the processing of claims. Does the Minister have anything to share with your Lordships on the progress within the Home Office on additional staffing and training, or has Covid halted all that? One positive line in the draft text was the “best interests of children”, although there is no systematic process for identifying what that means to different parties or operation rights.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has gone rather over her eight minutes. If she could bring her remarks to a close, that would be appreciated by the rest of the Committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am so sorry—I apologise for interrupting.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I hope that the noble Lord will not include that exchange in my 10 minutes.
On the importance of the best interests of children, perhaps the noble Baroness can also tell us of any progress on piloting trafficking guardians and update us as to arrangements with the French and Belgian Governments. Can she also comment on the loss of data-sharing arrangements with the EU, and on arrangements to replace what we have had from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund? Not only has progress been undetectable but it seems that there has also been an undetectable political will to sort this out. We need political will to create safe and legal routes. That is not a mantra; it is really important to save lives and make the lives of many people worth living.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
It is hardly satisfactory to be debating an EU Committee report nearly 12 months after it was published. While I am more than aware that there have been major difficulties this year, equally, I can recall that there were times this summer when this House did not have a full day’s business. Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, and the former Home Affairs Sub-Committee on their measured and informative report, which seeks to bring both calmness of thought and the facts to bear on an issue that is all too often the subject of exaggeration and excessive emotion.
In the light of the Government revoking the Dublin III regulation at the end of the transition period and not keeping it as retained EU law, the committee considered what the impact would be of the UK ceasing to participate in the Dublin system after Brexit. It concluded that it
“would result in the loss of a safe, legal route for the reunification of separated refugee families in Europe. Vulnerable unaccompanied children would find their family reunion rights curtailed, as Dublin offers them the chance to be reunited with a broader range of family members than under current UK Immigration Rules.”
The report also stated:
“After Brexit, the UK is also likely to find it more difficult to enforce the principle that people in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Without access to the Eurodac database, it is unclear how the UK would be able to identify asylum applicants who have already been registered in another European country. And a new returns agreement (or agreements) would be needed for the UK to be able to send asylum seekers back to their first point of entry to the EU.”
A further issue raised by the committee was the potential impact of Brexit on our bilateral relationships with EU member states and, in particular, on the arrangements with France and Belgium, which allow us to check passengers and freight en route to the UK before they begin their journey, and on the co-operation between UK, French and Belgian border agencies to address the issue of migrants attempting to cross the channel in small boats. The committee recommended:
“Future UK-EU asylum cooperation should take the Dublin System as its starting point and would ideally be based on continued UK access to the Eurodac database … All routes to family reunion available under the Dublin System should be maintained”.
In their response to the committee in March this year, the Government said that
“the UK does not intend to replicate the Dublin Regulation”
although they were seeking, as has been said, a close partnership with the EU on asylum and illegal immigration, as well as a new agreement with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the EU with family members in the UK. However, the Government’s European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 removed the previous legal obligation to seek to negotiate such an agreement.
The EU Committee has since raised further questions in a letter last May arising from the Government’s response to its report in March of this year. A feature of that letter was the number of occasions in which it was stated that, despite waiting five months for the Government’s response to the report we are now debating, a number of recommendations or specific points had not been addressed. Can the Government explain in their reply to this debate why that happened and whether the Home Office response to a report is seen and cleared by Ministers before it is sent?
Can the Government also say why the response to the further letter from the EU Committee was apparently received only some months later, earlier this afternoon? I have not seen it but, subject to what the Government may say in response, the last-minute reply just before this debate tends to sum up their negative attitude to the role of Parliament. I noted with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on Ministers’ non-attendance at committees.
It would be helpful if the Government in their reply to this debate could give their responses to the questions raised in the follow-up letter of May this year, some of which I want to repeat so that the answers are on the record in Hansard. The committee wanted to know whether the Government would seek to negotiate an interim agreement to support refugee family reunion, as urged in its report, in the event of no deal on asylum and immigration matters being reached by the end of the transition period. Are the Government seeking to maintain all routes to family reunion currently available under the Dublin system as part of the
“ambitious new partnership on asylum and immigration”
they were seeking?
In its report, the committee concluded that a future agreement with the EU on asylum and immigration should uphold a range of minimum standards for refugee protection. Are the Government committed to including such minimum standards in a future agreement? If so, what minimum standards are the Government seeking? How would the parties’ adherence to these minimum standards be supervised? How and by whom would they be enforced?
The EU committee report referred to the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and said that the UK had been the largest recipient of funding, having been allocated—I seem to remember—€370 million to spend on national priorities, such as improving Home Offices processes and the returns programme, and in support of refugee resettlement programmes and integration measures. Can the Government in their reply to this debate today say whether they plan to replace the support provided by the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund? Can the Government, either today or subsequently, say how much funding the UK has received from the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund over the past 10 years, with a breakdown of how, and on what, it has been spent?
The EU committee supported the Government’s intention to establish a single global refugee resettlement programme this year by consolidating existing schemes. My noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, both referred to this. Can the Government indicate, if they have not already done this, when they will be providing a detailed summary to local authorities of how the new global resettlement scheme will operate and what that information will include? Can the Government also say in their response what they think were the factors that led many local authorities not to participate in the previous resettlement schemes and how they intend to encourage more authorities to participate in the global resettlement scheme?
The report we are considering urged the Government to offer the same package of financial and other integration support to all recognised refugees in the UK, irrespective of whether they arrived through a resettlement programme or as an asylum seeker. Can the Government say whether they will ensure that all recognised refugees in the UK receive equality of support, no matter how they arrive in this country?
On agreements with third countries, on readmission or co-operation to address the causes of migration, the committee recommended that all such agreements should be subject to formal human rights assessments. Can the Government say whether they will be doing this and, if so, which human rights standards will be applied? Will the Government’s assessment be subject to independent verification and, if so, by which body?
A number of issues and points have been raised by noble Lords on refugee protection and asylum policy over the past two hours or so. I hope government answers will now be forthcoming because we are approaching the deadline day for determining our future immigration policy, including on this issue, with some rapidity and even more uncertainty. It looks as though the role of Parliament in influencing and determining that policy will be as minimal as the Government can make it because future policy depends on the outcome of negotiations with the EU, negotiations that will be concluded, at best, very late in the day, and over which Parliament has little or no meaningful say or influence, with the essential specifics of our future immigration policy, including refugee protection and asylum policy, being laid down in secondary legislation, which cannot be amended, rather than in primary legislation. Quite sweeping powers are being grabbed by the Government, which they can then exercise with little meaningful challenge or direct accountability. Specific answers from the Government to the many questions and points raised in this debate today would therefore be both welcome and much needed. I hope I am wrong in suspecting that those answers will also prove elusive.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for tabling a discussion on the report published last year by the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Brexit: Refugee Protection and Asylum Policy. I start by issuing two apologies: first, that the letter to noble Lords arrived only this morning, and secondly, that a Home Office Minister is not available to appear at the Select Committee next week. I will take that second point away and see what can be done for this time next week. I am grateful to noble Lords for alerting me to that. I hope the letter proves useful. There is only one part of it where I am going to have to provide figures. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the replacement of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. The breakdown of the numbers is not in the letter, but I will try to provide that breakdown, if I can.
I thank the members of the committee for their very thoughtful contributions this afternoon and for the work they have done in producing this report. It made a number of conclusions and recommendations, and I will look at each in turn. The noble Lords, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, my noble friend Lady Warsi, and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I think—made the important point about how we treat those who need our refuge being a reflection on us as a nation. I agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, talked about the Ugandan Asians and how we gave them our refuge all those years ago. He also asked me for the published figures on 319X, which I am afraid I do not have. I agree with the committee’s principle that the way that we treat others is a reflection of ourselves.
The committee calls on the Government to offer public reassurances that they have no intention of curtailing the rights and protections afforded to refugees in the UK after Brexit. I can be quite clear from the outset, and I have said this before: this Government will continue to provide protection to refugees in the UK in accordance with the 1951 refugee convention. We will continue to support refugee resettlement and integration in the UK now that we have left the EU and after the end of the transition period—to answer all noble Lords who have made that point.
The report stated that
“it is vital that refugees and asylum seekers are considered in any agreement on the future UK-EU relationship.”
Notwithstanding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the UK has made a genuine and sincere offer on asylum and migration co-operation with the EU. While I do not intend to comment on negotiations, as they are ongoing, the Government have always been clear that our offer is in the interests of both the UK and EU, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is shaking his head. The issue is of the utmost importance to the UK and a core part of the UK’s whole-of-route approach to migration.
The report notes the Government’s position not to participate in burden-sharing measures, although comments that it would be in the UK’s interests to do so. That does not align with this Government’s view. Rather, we are of the opinion that a redistribution mechanism is likely to further increase flows to Europe, continuing the risk of more and more people making dangerous journeys. For these reasons, the UK is unwilling to participate in a voluntary relocation programme and, as such, we would not expect the future EU-UK relationship to be underpinned by such a proposal.
Now that the UK has left the EU, at the end of the transition period the UK will also cease to be party to the Dublin III regulation. The committee commented that Dublin represents a more desirable and realistic foundation for the future UK-EU asylum relationship than new agreements. However, the Government do not intend to replicate Dublin; instead, we are seeking an ambitious new partnership on asylum and illegal migration. Dublin is an EU law and it is right that, as an independent, sovereign country, we form our own arrangements at the end of the transition period. The UK will no longer be subject to EU directives or part of the common European asylum system at the end of the transition period. This includes having our own standards on asylum procedures and reception arrangements. The UK already has high standards for how we operate our asylum system, and we will continue to be a world leader in this area.
The report comments that human rights considerations must be at the heart of any future agreements with third countries on readmissions and illegal migration, and the Government agree wholeheartedly. That is why all returns cases are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account relevant case law and country conditions, based on evidence from a wide range of sources, including human rights organisations. We regularly monitor and review the situation in countries of origin, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We will continue to uphold our obligation of non-refoulement under the refugee convention, by which we will continue to be bound.
The Government have proposed that the EU and UK enter into a comprehensive readmissions agreement. This would allow for the return of EU, UK and third-country nationals who have entered the UK directly from an EU country, and vice versa. The UK’s preference is to agree a readmissions agreement with the EU, but this is a two-way negotiation so the outcome will also depend on EU co-operation. The Government have also presented a genuine and sincere offer to the EU for a new, reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the EU with family members in the UK, where it is in the child’s best interests, and for children in the UK with family in the EU in equivalent circumstances, once the UK ceases participating in the Dublin regulation at the end of the transition period.
On 19 May, we published a draft legal text as a constructive contribution to negotiations. We have tabled a draft legal text for a negotiated agreement for a state-to-state referral and transfer system which would provide clear and consistent processes between the UK and EU member states, ensuring appropriate support for the child, and guaranteeing reciprocity. These guarantees cannot be provided for in UK domestic provisions alone. Even though the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, presses me to, I cannot provide a running commentary on this but, on that point about Eurodac, we are very keen to reach an agreement on biometric data sharing, for very obvious reasons.
The committee commented that it is imperative that the right to reunion for refugee families should not be restricted after we are no longer part of Dublin. The UK already provides safe and legal routes to bring families together through its refugee family reunion policy and under the family provisions in Part 8 and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. These routes are not affected by the UK’s exit from the EU. There is no intention to negotiate new arrangements to replace the family reunion provisions of the Dublin regulation for adults and accompanied children at this time, as we believe our domestic family reunion provisions offer sufficient family reunion routes. We recognise that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country. The Government’s family reunion policy allows those granted family reunion status or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom to sponsor their pre-flight partner and minor children to join them here. To half-answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I say that the Home Office has granted over 29,000 family reunion visas under the refugee family reunion Immigration Rules over the last five years, more than half of which were issued to children. But I shall endeavour to get her figures for the last 10 years.
The report also recommends that the definition of family members eligible for reunion should be expanded to include adult children. I should point out that there are separate provisions in the rules to allow extended family to sponsor children to come here when there are serious and compelling circumstances. Where an application fails under the Immigration Rules, we consider whether there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate reasons to justify granting leave to enter or remain in the UK, outside of the Immigration Rules. We have published guidance which aims to provide advice on the types of cases that might benefit from this discretion, including young adult sons or daughters who are dependent on family here and living in dangerous situations. Refugees can also sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them when, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by relatives in the UK.
The committee supports the campaign to expand refugee family reunion to include children being able to sponsor parents. The noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made that point, among others. On this matter, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we are quite clear and have repeatedly made clear the Government’s concern that allowing refugee children in the UK to sponsor parents would create further incentives for more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family to make that journey to the UK to sponsor relatives, in the manner that my noble friend Lord Blencathra points out. They often have hazardous journeys in the substandard vessels that we have seen so often on the television. Our view is that this plays into the hands of criminal gangs, which exploit vulnerable people, and that goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. Meanwhile, the UK will continue to participate in the Dublin III regulation throughout the transition period, including the family reunion provisions. Just to clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I say that children do not apply under Dublin; it is a state-to-state transfer referral system.
Under the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 there is a saving provision to explicitly ensure that any Dublin family reunion cases that have entered the system prior to the end of the transition period will continue to be processed beyond that date. The noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Loomba, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, all made that point. I note that the committee was not satisfied that these regulations would provide sufficient protection against disruption to family reunion routes and suggested a temporary extension of current arrangements. As I have made clear, the UK will be leaving the Dublin regulation at the end of the transition period. It is right that, as an independent, sovereign nation, we are no longer bound by EU regulation. The saving provision offers certainty that those cases that entered the system prior to the end of the transition period will continue to be processed.
Continuing with unaccompanied children, the committee expressed its disappointment that the Government did not establish a guardianship service in England and Wales for all unaccompanied migrant children. In response to the report’s concern about unaccompanied children, I stress that the Home Office takes its responsibility for the welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children extremely seriously. Comprehensive statutory and policy safeguards and arrangements are already in place for supporting children through the asylum process and ensuring that their best interests are a primary consideration in every decision taken in respect of them.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, asked about the number of children in detention. I am pretty certain that figure is nought and that that stopped some time ago, but I will double-check and write to him if it is any different.
I differ with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on local authorities not supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. All unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after by local authorities, which are their corporate parents. They have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote their welfare. Under these arrangements, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are provided with access to support and services in line with other looked-after children in that local authority’s care.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why not all local authorities participated in the resettlement schemes. That is responded to in the letter. We cannot force local authorities to participate in these schemes, but I am very pleased to say that more than 320 have. We are very grateful to them for all the children they have taken and who they care for.
To take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, children are allocated a social worker, who will assess their needs and draw up a care plan, which sets out how the authority intends to respond to the full range of the child’s needs, including their immigration status. In addition to this support from local authorities, legal advice is available to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from legal representatives.
In England, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are referred to the Refugee Council’s children’s advice project, which provides independent advice and assistance to help the child in their interaction with the Home Office and other central and local government agencies. We believe these comprehensive arrangements already provide unaccompanied children with the necessary specialist advice and support that they need.
To speak to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in acknowledgment of the likely increased support needs of trafficked children, in July 2018 the Government reaffirmed their commitment to the full national rollout of independent child trafficking guardians across England and Wales. These people are an additional source of advice and support for all trafficked children, irrespective of nationality, and someone who can advocate on their behalf. One-third of all local authorities in England and Wales are now covered by this provision.
The committee urged the Government to provide regular updates on progress of the Dubs scheme. I know that noble Lords are aware that the Government have successfully delivered this commitment and in July we announced that we had completed the transfer of all 480 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Greece, France and Italy under the scheme.
My noble friend Lady Warsi and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked me about our future commitments. We have a long and established history of providing refuge to those who need it. We will continue to uphold that tradition in the manner we have historically done. In recent years, the UK has received a significant number of asylum claims from unaccompanied children. In the year ending December 2019, the UK received 3,775 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That was more than any EU member state and accounted for over 20% of all asylum claims from unaccompanied children across the EU and the UK. This follows previous years that have seen similarly high numbers of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK—3,254 in 2015, 3,290 in 2016, and 2,401 in 2017. In the future we will consider unaccompanied asylum-seeking children’s asylum applications here, as well as prioritising helping children in dangerous countries, rather than in safe EU countries, through our resettlement scheme. I cannot remember who made this point, but our future system will consider vulnerability from a global perspective.
On the Moria camp and the Lesbos fire, noble Lords will have heard in our discussions on the immigration Bill the other day what I had outlined since 22 April. We have taken children and there were flights on 11 May, 28 July and 6 August. We are exploring what more we can do to this end.
I have just been told that my time is almost up. There are quite a lot of other things to cover. I will cover one more thing—the future UK resettlement scheme and the single global refugee resettlement scheme—and then I will stop. The Government will issue an updated policy statement, which will be published ahead of the UK resettlement scheme launch, once we have met our commitment to resettle 20,000 vulnerable refugees through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. As noble Lords said, it is right that we continue to offer legal and safe routes to the UK for vulnerable refugees in need of protection, for whom resettlement is the only durable solution.
I apologise that I have run out of time, but I will, as I did I think yesterday, follow up in writing to noble Lords.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the points made in the debate so seriously. This debate has shown the need to address the question of asylum seekers and refugees with humanity and understanding, not fear and demonisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said. Of course the Government will have to resolve difficult conflicts. None of this is easy, but the consequences of getting it wrong are troubling. How we address these issues will, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, help to determine how the United Kingdom is seen around the world as we seek to branch out beyond Brexit. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee stands adjourned.
House of Lords
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points; and I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Oil and Gas Industry
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure the recovery and diversification of the United Kingdom oil and gas industry supply chain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I recognise the impact that the coronavirus pandemic and the lower oil price have had on the oil and gas supply chain. We are working closely with the sector to agree a transformational North Sea transition deal, which we have committed to delivering in this Parliament. The focus of this deal will be on ensuring that the sector can support the energy transition and on anchoring the supply chain here in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with me that, as we transition to net-zero carbon, we will continue to require fossil fuels and that it is better to use our own, which meet high international standards, and to sustain a quarter of a million UK jobs? Will the Government work closely with the industry, the Scottish Government and local councils to help accelerate diversification into carbon capture and storage and renewable energy, and exploit the huge potential from hydrogen, using the capital and world-class expertise that exists in our industry, so that these high-quality jobs can be diversified into new, low-carbon-sector jobs, rather than be lost?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
I agree with the points made by the noble Lord. I congratulate the sector on its response to the twin crises of the pandemic and the lower oil price. The Government launched an unprecedented Covid-19 financial package because we want to support the sector, which sustains more than 270,000 jobs in the UK. As I said earlier, we are committed to a proper North Sea transition deal.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. As oil and gas supply and service companies move increasingly to offshore or renewable business, will the Minister confirm that the energy White Paper will cover the error whereby the energy transition discussions on renewable costs almost always completely ignore the system costs of coping with periods of intermittently zero or limited electron production?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes a good point, as always. The White Paper will indeed address the characteristics of the electricity system as we prepare for a net-zero future, balancing the increased deployment of renewables with more flexibility and low-carbon sources of electricity that are available when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Indeed, our system has already demonstrated that it can operate with a high percentage of renewable generation: 47% of electricity in the first quarter of this year was renewable, and, adding in nuclear, we had more than 60% from low-carbon generation.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the key issue of training can be expressed in two ways. What support is to be provided to ensure that, as the industry migrates across to new, sustainable energy markets, UK jobs are retained by reskilling and retraining this highly skilled workforce? Coupled to that, what support is to be provided to UK companies helping developing economies in their continuing efforts to prioritise local content initiatives for sustainable economic development?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes a very good point. It will be key to the sector deal to make sure that we can utilise the tremendous expertise across the oil and gas sector both for our own low-carbon transition and to help other countries with theirs.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Oil and Gas Authority is only just beginning to take account of the UK’s statutory target for net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. Official projections from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy take no account of that requirement. Our nation is sleepwalking into an energy crisis of major proportions. National daytime electricity demand is forecast to double from 40 to 80 gigawatts by 2050, when we should have net-zero emissions. Oil and gas will have to be phased out, yet the Government’s industrial strategy does not mention the need to retrain and redeploy oil and gas workers. Although renewables can achieve much, there will always be days when wind and sun cannot meet our demands. Nuclear power provides the green option, yet we are discovering daily that the plan for nuclear power is in growing disarray. How do the Government intend to resolve this imminent crisis of secure nuclear power provision?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
I do not accept that we are sleepwalking into a crisis. We are devoting huge expertise and energy to planning for the transition. Renewables and nuclear have an important role to play in the transition, as do oil and gas. However, the noble Lord will have to be patient and wait for the energy White Paper, when all these matters will become clear.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with the oil and gas industry about utilising its expertise as we establish the UK’s green hydrogen production? What assessment have the Government made of the potential for the hydrogen industry to provide replacement high-skilled jobs for those lost in oil and gas as we decarbonise the economy?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
The noble Lord is consistent in advocating for the hydrogen sector, and it is true that the oil and gas sector has an important contribution to make to the UK’s energy transition. Its world-class supply chain has many of the essential skills and capabilities to support emerging technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The noble Lord will be aware that we launched the Hydrogen Advisory Council on 20 July to help inform the development of a UK hydrogen strategy, which we intend to publish early next year.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The Energy Minister in the other place has said that an oil and gas sector deal will be critically important for the sector as it seeks to recover from the current crisis. There is some confusion over this, as we still know so very little. Can the Minister confirm that any oil and gas sector deal will comply with the UK’s domestic and international climate change commitments and include fully funded programmes to transfer skills into clean industries? Is this sector deal transforming into the North Sea transition deal?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
We are currently awaiting proposals from the industry and we are committed to working closely with it; it has a key role to play. We will, of course, be consistent with our international obligations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
What is the current state of interconnectors to the energy market? What new interconnectors is my noble friend expecting to come on stream and when might that be?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
My noble friend is right that interconnectors have a key role to play. There are a number of existing electricity and gas interconnectors, which will play a key role in the transition. They also provide security of supply to both imports and exports of energy. We will be supporting them.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests in the register. BP has forecast that peak oil will come about in the early 2020s—much earlier than previously predicted. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to deal with this? Are they ready for it?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
As we have said, oil and gas have a key role to play in the transition and that is reflected by the independent Committee on Climate Change. Many of these things are, of course, a matter for the market. We have historically low oil prices at the moment, and the Government are well aware of it. We need to transition away from fossil fuel. BP, which the noble Lord mentioned, is doing a tremendous job in supporting, for example, the Net Zero Teesside scheme.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD) [V]
Will Her Majesty’s Government support carbon capture and storage technology on a regional basis across the UK, including the north-west, to meet our net-zero commitment while securing the future energy needs of our manufacturing plants, without which we will come to rely even more on imports from other countries? Without such a commitment, we will undermine our contribution to tackling climate change while putting in doubt thousands of jobs in this sector at the worst possible time.
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
The noble Lord is right. Carbon capture and storage will be a key part of our future energy requirements. The Chancellor announced the new carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund of at least £800 million. We are committed to deploying carbon capture and storage in at least two industrial clusters over the next decade.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, parts of our world are burning; parts of it are melting. We are already committed to a one degree rise in temperature globally. The Government are not feeling the urgency of this. We have to stop fossil fuel burning now. It is no good talking about transitioning and having little dribs and drabs of plans. The Government need a vision. If I can help with that, I would be delighted.
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness; I admire her commitment to these causes. In essence, we agree, albeit probably not on the scale she requires. The UK was the first major world economy to legislate for net zero. We were one of the first countries to commit to ending unabated coal generation and we intend to do that by 2024. I hope that the noble Baroness will also recognise that the oil and gas sector has a key role to play in supporting the transition through its skills, infrastructure and investment. As we move to a low-carbon economy, oil and gas will play an increasingly small role, but we need to utilise the skills that exist in the industry.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Creative Industries
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking during the COVID-19 pandemic to support diversity in the creative industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting diversity in the creative industries throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond. The £1.57 billion culture recovery fund announced in July provides support for cultural and creative organisations, with funding decisions informed by work that delivers social benefits and encourages diversity in both the workforce and audiences.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her Answer. As she knows, many freelancers in the creative industries are still having a problem accessing support. There is talent everywhere in this area, but that cannot be said for opportunity. Those from diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds, and the disabled, are being particularly hard hit. The Minister mentioned the Government’s commitment to impacting on diversity and equal opportunity through the recovery package. However, considering the Government’s commitment to levelling up, can she inform the House of the department’s specific assessment in this area?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share the noble Baroness’s view that there is talent everywhere and that our creative industries have been an extraordinary success. On the cultural recovery fund, there is within it a priority of focusing on projects that help deliver on levelling up and on organisations that have a track record of social benefit.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, given that engagement with the creative industries can have such a positive impact on society in so many ways, does the Minister agree that it is crucial for the Government to seek to encourage a much greater involvement of those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the creative industries, so as to enable those industries to represent and engage with the whole of society? Does she further agree that this is a matter of urgency, given the vulnerability of such groups at present to Covid-19 and other health risks, as well as to unemployment?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. We are committed, and have been, along with many parts of the industry, to addressing the gap around accessibility for lower socioeconomic groups. It is a complex industry with a multiplicity of tiny organisations, which makes it challenging from a policy perspective—but the commitment is there.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, the creative industries are so important to this country, in terms of both the economy and our international reputation. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that progress on diversity in the creative industries over the last few years has been disappointing and that this is a time for real leadership to address this issue?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is sadly right that the progress in this area has been disappointing. There are pockets of improvement, particularly around ethnicity in certain subsectors of the industry. However, as I said in my response to the right reverend Prelate, there is not a single body that can sort this out. That is why we are pleased to be working closely in partnership with the key industry bodies, including the Creative Industries Council, to address this point.
Baroness Bull (CB)
ONS data from September 2019 showed that 16% of the creative workforce was of working-class origins. Covid-19 is exacerbating this class crisis. Up to 35% of the workforce have had no financial support, and without employment and no access to alternative economic and social resources, 20% are leaving to find work elsewhere. Will the Government publish an assessment of Covid on the creative workforce as stratified by socioeconomic origin, and will they commit to following their own Social Mobility Commission guidance on monitoring the extent of socioeconomic diversity in the workforce, especially in those organisations getting investment from Covid support schemes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness raises important points. As I said earlier, we take this issue seriously. We were encouraged by some of the work done by the Creative Industries Council, which published its Diversity & Inclusion Progress Report in, I think, May. We are beginning to get more clarity on the baseline from which we are moving. There is better diversity monitoring, better strategies to develop a talent pipeline and clear strategies to address leadership. As I say, there is a great deal of work to be done and much in train.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, the BBC plays a crucial role in supporting our creative industries and developing greater diversity, with schemes such as its Diversity Commissioning Code of Practice. The new director-general has set a 50%, 20% and 12% target for workforce diversity at the BBC itself in terms of gender, race and disability. Does the Minister welcome this initiative, and is her department giving leadership by pressing for higher departmental workforce diversity targets than currently exist?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We absolutely welcome the announcement from the new director-general about targets. I believe I am right in saying that my department is one of the most diverse in Westminster.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has already made clear some of the points I was going to ask her about. But is she aware of the extent to which the creative industries have helped both the physical and mental well-being of the young and the old during lockdown? It is essential—I hope she will make this point again—that this important aspect is not overlooked and that the Government continue to provide support.
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are absolutely clear that the role of the creative industries in protecting our mental health in particular has been vital during lockdown.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Film and TV Production Restart Scheme’s rules, which were published last week, say in rule 11 that it is expected that funding granted under the scheme will comply with social commitments that address issues such as lack of diversity. This is very welcome. However, there appears to be a let-out clause for pre-existing productions. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will scrutinise this issue carefully and that any attempts by producers in receipt of these funds to weaken commitments to diversity will be rigorously challenged?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very happy to take back the noble Lord’s point and ensure that this is looked at carefully, as he suggests.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB) [V]
Diverse talent going into the creative industry depends so much on educational support. Can the Minister inform the House what percentage of schools have restarted their dance, drama and music classes since they went back earlier this month?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think I will have to write to the noble Viscount on that point.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
The pandemic has dealt a devastating blow to people working in the creative industries. Many have lost their livelihoods—[Inaudible.]
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness is inaudible. If she would like to write to the Minister, I am sure she would be happy to answer her question.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Devolution in England
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to further devolution in England.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
We intend to publish the devolution and local recovery White Paper in the autumn. This will set out our plans for expanding devolution across England to support economic recovery and levelling up, building on the success of our directly elected combined authority mayors.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that while there is major devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is a democratic deficit in England? So will the White Paper, when it comes out, include the devolution of real power to major regions throughout the whole of England?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there are ways for government to provide support to the devolved Administrations and across borders. I point the noble Lord to the borderlands growth deal as one such way of being able to achieve that. We are not looking at top-down devolution, but focusing on local city and growth deals as the way forward.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will the White Paper recognise that devolving more powers to local government needs to be accompanied by greater financial freedom to use those powers? Will the White Paper explore alternative means of funding local government, perhaps broadening the base and possibly replacing business rates, which, in their present form, are increasingly difficult to defend?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I have great sympathy for my noble friend’s point, as a co-author of A Magna Carta for Localism a decade ago. I can assure him that we are reviewing the mayoral combined authority model to identify how to maximise its effectiveness, including such powers as financial freedoms and funding devolution.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the White Paper will set out firm commitments to back pan-regional bodies such as the Midlands Engine partnership, given their vital role in driving forward the levelling-up agenda in the Midlands and beyond?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I can make that commitment to support pan-regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine, the western gateway and northern powerhouse, to promote economic opportunities and drive forward the levelling-up agenda.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as one of the architects of Welsh devolution I firmly believe in bringing government closer to the people in England too. Coronavirus has been a wake-up call to Whitehall that there are four Governments in the United Kingdom. Why has Westminster let so much time go by without a greater effort to iron out minor differences in devolved government health decisions, which puzzle everyone? Is the failure to agree on policies due to stubbornness?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not recognise that policy paper. There was a firm commitment in the Queen’s Speech to full devolution in England but, as I said, looking to do this in a way that works with local communities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand devolution to mean the transfer of powers, competences and finance. Decentralisation of tasks under central direction with conditional funding seems to me to be what this Government propose, together with bits of Whitehall departments being sent out to the provinces but still entirely controlled by Cabinet Ministers in London. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s definition of devolution for England?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this is much more than simple decentralisation. Devolution has now occurred to eight mayoral combined authorities, which we see as driving forward the economic performance of the regions governed by those mayors. We will continue to build on those successes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, the effectiveness of local contact tracing compared to the centralised system has been striking during the Covid-19 pandemic. Can the Minister tell me how the White Paper has been shaped and changed by things we have learned during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot pre-empt the White Paper on that point, but there has been full consultation that will take in the lessons learned from the pandemic.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
Does my noble friend agree that while we do not necessarily need rigid uniformity in the distribution of power to areas throughout England, there does need to be some degree of equity, so that the more rural and smaller areas are not the losers relative to new and larger regional or metropolitan authorities? What is his strategy for achieving that, and will it be addressed in the White Paper?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for putting the case for rural communities. Our current mayoral combined authority model is successful in delivering both for major cities such as Manchester and areas such as North of Tyne, which have significant rural areas.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the city regions process has been seen as a broad success that has shifted public opinion in support of greater devolution in all the UK nations. As vice-chair of the APPG on the western gateway, I assure the Minister that I am a great supporter of these deals. This proposal is unique, insofar as it covers both Wales and England and therefore includes both Governments and councils across the regions. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of this deal? I anticipate that a written reply would be appropriate.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will write to the noble Baroness on the latest update on progress on that front.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is understood as a political and economic matter, as we have heard, but does the Minister agree that there is a significant cultural dimension, not least because our various institutions are seen as a devolutionary tool, moving the Lords being just the latest idea? Should not the regions be enabled to build on their own culture, which will happen in the fullest sense only if our cities and regions have real power and are represented at the national level, rather than being subjected to a form of London colonialism?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the importance of enabling local leadership to drive forward the cultural agenda of particular places and I am sure that that will be discussed more fully in the forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend look at the proposals in the Policy Exchange document No More Tiers, which proposes that power should reside in communities such as the one I live in now, at Eastbourne, rather than be handed down from higher authorities?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will take a careful look at the No More Tiers paper published by Policy Exchange some 14 years ago. I can assure my noble friend that there will be no blanket abolition of districts and that we will take a locally driven approach and ensure that decision-making is taken as close as possible to the people we are serving.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am glad to hear the Minister say that, because my question is around unitary authorities. Obviously, the rumour mill is rife at the moment that this is causing some delays. The Minister will be aware that many councils are already working on plans for this, either with a positive frame or negatively, and that any delay or uncertainty is unsettling and demoralising. It has financial and practical implications. If we take recruitment, who wants to move to an authority that might not exist in two years’ time; and who wants to waste taxpayers’ money working up economic models that are never going to happen? Can the Minister reassure us that the Government recognise that this is a real issue for local government, and that these very important decisions will be made swiftly, as soon as possible?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes the important point that we need to move quickly and make decisions so that we are clear about the future. I have assured the House that unitarisation will not be a topdown, blanket approach and we will not see the wholesale abolition of districts.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we move on to the next Question.
Housing: Cladding
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress in removing dangerous cladding from high-rise buildings.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, we are continually assessing progress on removing dangerous cladding from high-rise buildings and publish data on this every month. Progress has been made. Almost three-quarters—74%—of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding are either completed or in the process of remediation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and for the funds the Government have made available to deal with the problems following the Grenfell tragedy, but the PAC report last week and the Sunday Times article reveal the scale of the problems that lie ahead. Only one-third of buildings with Grenfell cladding have had it replaced with safe alternatives. There are 186,000 other privately owned high-rise flats where the leaseholders are trapped with high service charges, unaffordable repairs and, in some cases, fire patrol costs of £750 a month. Then there are 1.5 million other flats that leaseholders cannot sell because they cannot get the certificates that lenders are now insisting on. Will my noble friend convene an urgent meeting of freeholders, leaseholders, valuers and lenders to come up with a comprehensive and time-limited plan which both ensures safety in these flats and removes the blight?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend should rest assured that we are focused on the pace of remediation. The Secretary of State or I will be speaking to building owners, local authorities and fire and rescue services to press them to accelerate this pace. We are also looking at the interventions that we may need to take as a Government to deal with this blight. We will obviously continue our engagement with all the stakeholders he mentioned in the course of that endeavour.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister must be quite daunted to have two respected former Ministers on this Oral Question. The National Audit Office has said that the department has a long way to go to make all the high-rise buildings safe. The slowest to change has been the private sector. Councils have difficulty in checking these buildings, as the owner may well be a shell company registered abroad. The Housing Act gives councils the right to investigate, but the procedures are slow, costly and subject to a high legal bar. What practical steps will the Government take to overcome these challenges so that they keep their promises?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there are a number of enforcement approaches, both through the Housing Act but also through the fire safety order, which is being updated and will be debated in this House next week. We continue to use a joint inspection team to look at the best way of enforcing against those building owners that are not moving to remediate unsafe cladding.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government stated in January that they were considering extending cladding risks to buildings of between four and seven stories. There are around 100,000 such buildings in England, some with dangerous forms of cladding. What investigations have been undertaken to determine the extent of this fire risk, which affects upwards of half a million people, and what remedies are the Government considering?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, at this stage we have not made a decision to move the high-risk regime beyond those buildings above 18 metres. As Dame Judith has said, it is those high-rise buildings that have the greatest risk, and we are attempting to stop the multiple fatalities that we saw at Grenfell. That is where we will focus our efforts.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s pledge of £1 billion to help solve this problem is very welcome indeed. I was a bit puzzled by the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which said that this £1 billion was unlikely to be sufficient. Did it give any accurate figures to back up this statement?
Do we know what led the Blair Government to allow this dangerous cladding in the first place? In June 2017, Jeremy Corbyn tried to blame this whole subject—and the Grenfell Tower fire—on this Government, and Prime Minister Theresa May had to remind him that the cladding began under the Blair Government.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the costs of historic failure, with regard to the quality of construction, mean that the costs will exceed the £1 billion that we have committed—but we do not expect the entire burden to fall on the taxpayer. We should note that, from the first fund, a number of private building owners have moved to remediate that or used warranties to raise the funds, so it has not fallen on leaseholders. I would point out that there has been an unacceptable culture within the construction industry, built up over successive Governments, that this Government are trying to address.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
In September of last year, the housing Minister said that those owners who fail to remove unsafe Grenfell-style ACM cladding from their buildings would suffer the consequences. He said:
“There is no excuse for … delay.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/19; col. 373.]
But there are still 246 tall buildings where such cladding remains. Can the Minister say what consequences those who fail to conform have suffered over this last year?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, clearly the pace of remediation is our utmost concern, and that has meant that some costs, including those on interim measures, have fallen on leaseholders. We continue to push to ensure that this remediation does occur and look at the relevant parties to carry out the necessary enforcement action.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests, as set out in the register. It has been over three years and three months since the fire at Grenfell Tower. It is unacceptable that there are still tower blocks today with dangerous ACM cladding on them. This is putting people’s lives at risk, and residents are trapped, unable to move or sell their flats. When are the Government going to give the powers and resources to local government or, as recommended by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, set up a national body to get on and do the necessary work to make these buildings safe? It is unacceptable, disappointing, frustrating and worrying that a Question such as this has to be asked so many years after the fire.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I agree that it is unacceptable. That is why I wrote to all owners of buildings where there is no remediation plan currently in place, to let them know that we will look to enforcement action if they do not remediate and get on site by the end of this year.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
At the Grenfell inquiry yesterday, Mr Bailey of Harley’s, the cladding contractor, said that he had had no training in building regulations, no training in fire protection of buildings and no awareness of the industry guidelines. Day after day we are getting mounting evidence of the catastrophic failure of the industry to deal with this problem. The Minister has an oven-ready Building Safety Bill. Will he please give us the date that it will come in front of your Lordships, so that we can very quickly put in place a far more effective and stringent regulatory regime?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord points to the woeful culture in the construction industry. All I can say is that the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill has started, and we look to get this through as quickly as possible with the support of Members of this House.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I must declare that I am an owner and occupier of a leasehold flat in a building with cladding, and also an elected member of the leaseholder management board of that block. During the course of this Question, the extent of the problem and the effects of it have clearly been highlighted. It is necessary for the Government to prioritise, ensuring of course that the buildings most dangerously at risk are addressed first.
However, this makes it all the more important that the Government reach a new agreement with lenders, in relation to the owners of leasehold flats within buildings who have taken all the necessary interim safety measures. Not only are leaseholders currently prevented from being able to sell or remortgage their property, but those same leaseholders might need to remortgage to finance their very costly contribution to the remedial works. I note what the Minister said, but the costs are falling on to leaseholders, not freeholders. So can the Minister tell us what discussions he is having with lenders on this particular matter in order to address the urgency of it?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have had a number of discussions with lenders, including a round table in June, to encourage them to take a more proportionate approach to risk in this regard. We recognise the points that the noble Baroness raises. However, I would say that, a number of times, we have seen buildings remediated through warranties, but also through building owners stepping up and paying for that remediation. Finally, we have asked Michael Wade, a senior adviser to the department, to look at ways of making remediation costs affordable to leaseholders if they do fall on them.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Afghanistan: Locally Employed Civilians
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement on 19 September that eligibility for the Afghanistan Locally Employed Civilians Ex-Gratia Scheme is to be extended, whether locally employed civilians who have left Afghanistan and now reside in a third country will be eligible.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, Home Office Immigration Rules stipulate that applications for relocation under the cross-government Afghan ex-gratia scheme for former locally employed civilians must be made in Afghanistan. This is due to the challenges involved with the capability of the Afghan authorities to verify the documents of applicants who are outside Afghanistan as well as difficulties in completing the vetting process for them. Therefore, former locally employed civilians no longer residing in Afghanistan are not eligible.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the decision to expand the scheme, especially for interpreters, without whom our Armed Forces could not have done their job. I know from the time I served on the LEC Assurance Committee that there is a genuine desire to get all this right. Will the Minister reconsider finding a way to include in the ex-gratia scheme those interpreters who felt so unsafe and threatened by the Taliban that they fled to a third country? They too deserve our gratitude and the offer of relocation. May I also ask the Minister whether the Government will guarantee that all children of those who qualify for relocation, but who have turned 18 during the lengthy process of application and additional delays because of Covid, will still be entitled to come here with their parents?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and I join her in paying tribute to the tremendous support offered by locally employed civilians as our interpreters, working hand in hand with us in Afghanistan; they have been absolutely invaluable. On her first question, as I indicated, there are genuine administrative difficulties in relation to applications from third-country residents. Whether some are able to produce documentation or evidence of their valid entitlement to claim is a matter that would certainly be looked at, but determining the outcome would be a Home Office decision.
On her second point, spouses and children are included in the expanded scheme. I do not have specific information on the technical issue of whether children who have now attained the age 18 would still be allowed to come. However, she has raised an important point and I undertake to write to her.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday Mr Mercer, the Minister for Veterans, said that his task was to genuinely change
“what it feels to be a veteran in the United Kingdom.”
Does he mean to include the Afghan interpreters who put their lives at risk fulfilling vital roles in support of our boys and who, with their families, have made homes in Britain, or was yesterday’s statement just another government Minister high on rhetoric while failing to deliver for those who have served our country?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the Government are offering a great deal of support to our veterans. We want to do that because it is the right thing to do, and that would be the context in which my honourable friend made his observation. Our interpreters, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, were an invaluable support. They were courageous and it would have been virtually impossible for us to do our job without their contribution. We have recognised that in a number of ways, which I think is very clear from the conditions that operated when they were employed by us. It is also clear from the ex-gratia scheme that we have now made available. Of course, for those who are fearful or apprehensive of intimidation, the noble Lord will be aware that we have provided support through the intimidation scheme in Afghanistan. We are the only country to offer in-house support, which is based in Kabul.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I welcome the extension of the ex-gratia scheme. The Minister referred at least twice to the Home Office. There is a concern that the extension might not have much effect if those interpreters who have already felt the need to leave Afghanistan cannot make use of the scheme here. Can the Minister take back to the Home Office the need to look again at the administrative hurdles which seem to have been put in the way of the effective expansion of the scheme?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that the expansion of the scheme is clear and the criteria surrounding it equally so. It is anticipated that there are interpreters in Afghanistan who will want to avail themselves of these expanded provisions. That is to be welcomed and it is a positive development. I explained in an earlier response the practical difficulties that surround validating entitlement and claims from those now resident in a third country. The reason that this is not an MoD responsibility is that it lies fairly and squarely within the responsibilities of the Home Office. I have undertaken to seek clarification, but at the end of the day, it is for the Home Office to deal with people making applications from outwith Afghanistan.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, this welcome extension seems to apply only to interpreters with at least 18 months’ service, whereas the previous support was available after 12 months. What is the basis for the change and what support is available for those who served alongside our Armed Forces for shorter periods but nevertheless provided significant assistance and undertook severe risks?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The history of how we engage with a local population when we need the supply and support of interpretation services indicates that they are highly regarded and very well treated. They are employed and well remunerated for the services they provide. On the distinction between redundancy and resignation, it is fair to say that people who are made redundant have no control over the situation, and it was therefore felt appropriate that their qualifying period should be 12 months. On the other hand, people who decided to resign from the service obviously had their own reasons for doing so; they made their own decisions. That is why, although we think it right to expand the scheme, it seemed appropriate to make their qualifying criteria 18 months.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the Government have a moral responsibility for locally employed civilians and their families who are endangered by their support for British operations, and that this responsibility still exists and must still be met, even when those civilians are employed by an intermediary contractor such as thebigword?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. As he will be aware, the MoD currently does not employ interpreters. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has employees and is responsible for the terms and conditions of the employment. It is important that the UK sends out a positive message about how we value those we draw on to provide their skills and support in times of operational activity. That is what we drew on in Afghanistan, which is why we want to recognise the incredible contribution made by these locally employed civilians. I hope the expansion of this scheme reflects that ambition.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, in spite of recent improvements, is the unpalatable fact not that the history of this matter really is shameful? Why have the Government dragged their feet when they have a clear moral obligation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, as he is well aware, but I do not entirely agree with that analysis. He will be aware that the scheme first got off the ground back in 2012, but eligibility was restricted only to those serving on 19 December 2012. Quite rightly, that was recognised as inadequate, and that is why the scheme was extended in 2018 so that those who served from May 2006 and, as has previously been indicated, served for over a year but were made redundant became entitled to inclusion. Then, in 2019, we saw that cohort expanded by the addition of their families, which was a sensible and humane decision to make. We now see the expansion of the scheme, so I disagree with the interpretation that this is too little, too late. We have put in place not only the ex gratia scheme to help the interpreters but intimidation scheme support for those who have decided to remain in Afghanistan.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the ex gratia scheme for Afghan interpreters rightly recognises our debt of gratitude to those who risked their lives helping us, but the limiting criteria for assistance, such as the need to have served a year for eligibility to settle in the UK, led many—desperately fleeing the country, leaving their families—to seek refuge abroad. Does the Minister agree that we have what is called a Christian duty to help them?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We have a duty to those who served and supported in Afghanistan—I think there were 2,900 interpreters in total—but, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, the Government are cognisant of their responsibilities. That is why they put in place what I think is now regarded as an effective and very supportive scheme with the ex gratia support.
As to the wider implications, at the end of the day we want to support where we can. The noble Lord will be aware that the scheme is in two parts. It offers relocation to the United Kingdom, but it also offers in-country training. That means people can receive five years of training and get a monthly stipend or can opt for an 18-month salary payment. That strikes a very good balance. We do not want to draw talent away from Afghanistan, which desperately needs that talent. Indeed, there is a most positive picture of that training having created doctors, dentists, teachers and engineers. I suggest to the noble Lord that we have balanced our responsibilities appropriately, recognised the contribution made and responded positively and effectively to the obligations on us as a country to make meaningful our respect for and appreciation of that contribution from the locally employed civilians.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid proceedings will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. 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 the 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
Tuesday 22nd September 2020
(4 years, 2 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-IV Provisional Fourth marshalled list for Report - (21 Sep 2020)
14:53 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 78 - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 228 - Amendment 78 agreed.
15:37 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 88 - Ayes: 122 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 88 disagreed.
18:12 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 89ZA - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 212 - Amendment 89ZA agreed.
22:23 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 100. - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 200 - Amendment 100 agreed.
22:37 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 101 - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 101 agreed.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, for this amendment, which is a means to embed the needs and welfare of animals in agricultural policy and to partly fill the vacuum of this Government not transposing across EU animal sentience legislation or introducing their own legislation, which they had promised to do in their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats accept that animals are sentient beings with intrinsic worth. We have consistently argued this throughout the stages of this Bill, in my remarks at Second Reading when welcoming the fact that Clause 1 allows payments to be made for animal welfare, and in opposition to easing the regulatory framework on gene editing.
Animal sentience is the only issue not being brought across when we leave the EU at the end of the year. It marks the end of a proud era when the UK led the rest of Europe to better animal welfare standards. Indeed, it was the UK Government who first suggested and then got animal sentience accepted into the treaty article in 1997.
We support the intention of this amendment. If the Minister is not intending to accept it, can I press her to say when legislation on animal sentience will be delivered, and whether she guarantees that it will have comparable or stronger powers than the existing EU legislation? I ask her to be very clear on the latter point, as there are rumblings of a pushback in the Government on the way that Ministers report how they take into account sentience when making decisions. Only an open and transparent process will give people confidence about how the needs of animals are considered in policy decisions. Without a guarantee to at least match the existing powers, the sad reality is that our animals will have less protection than has been the case as members of the EU.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill in 2017, there were several amendments in the Commons on animal sentience. There were also debates on the issue when the Bill was in the Lords and attempts to table similar amendments to other pieces of legislation. Theresa May’s Government committed to clarifying the legal position on animal sentience as part of their Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. This Government reintroduced the Bill in 2019, but it fell when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. A commitment to strengthen animal welfare rules was included in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, and, as I understand it, there is a Private Members Bill which will have its Second Reading in the Commons in October. We hope that it will be similar to the previous Government’s legislation and that if this is a substitute for a government Bill, Ministers and Whips will give it the time it needs to reach us in the Lords.
In the meantime, I express regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, felt that she needed to table the amendment in the first place, given that Her Majesty’s Government have not managed to deliver a Bill in three years on this important issue. We agree that there should be a strong protection for animals and a recognition of their ability to experience feelings and pain, with all the implications that has for our treatment of them. However, we are not convinced that this is the appropriate vehicle for it. As such, I hope that the Minister can clarify the point about the Commons Private Member’s Bill and, if that response is satisfactory, the amendment will not be pushed to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we can be rightly proud that the UK already has world-class animal welfare standards, but this Government are committed to strengthening these further.
We have introduced a ban on the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens, known as Lucy’s Law, to clamp down on puppy farming. Through the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019, we have legislated to ensure that wild animals can no longer perform in travelling circuses. We supported the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019, commonly known as Finn’s Law, to increase protections for police animals, and CCTV is now mandatory in all slaughterhouses in England; this will help maintain and improve welfare standards. We are committed to banning the keeping of primates as pets. We published a call for evidence in October 2019 that ended in January this year. This exercise has informed proposals on which we will shortly be consulting. On Thursday, we reiterated our manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that legal obligations towards animals should be enforced. That is why the Government are also supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which will increase the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty offences from six months’ imprisonment to five years. The new maximum sentence will send a clear signal to any potential offenders that animal cruelty will not be tolerated in this country and provide one of the toughest sanctions in Europe.
I place it on record that it has never been in dispute that animals are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain or suffering, and this fact is central to our commitment to strengthening animal welfare standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, should know, this Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce new laws on animal sentience, which we will do as soon as parliamentary time allows. However, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to legislate for animal sentience. As the noble Baroness recognises, the Agriculture Bill limits the scope of this amendment to agricultural, horticultural and forestry policy.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also extends the definition of “animal” to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs, alongside non-human vertebrates. This is an important step that we should not take lightly. The current science is clear that vertebrate animals can experience pain and suffering. It is on that basis that the definition of “animal” in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is limited only to vertebrate animals. However, this Act also contains an important power to extend the definition to cover invertebrates where we are satisfied on the basis of scientific evidence that these too are capable of experiencing pain or suffering. Defra recently commissioned an independent external review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapods and cephalopods. The outcome of this review will be vital in determining whether our new sentience provisions and other laws should be extended to decapods and cephalopods. This review is expected to report early next year.
In line with our manifesto commitment, this Government will introduce effective, credible and proportionate proposals in due course. I recognise the strength of feeling across the House on this issue, and say to my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is imperative that we allow appropriate time for debate to ensure that we get these important measures right. That is why I cannot accept this amendment as an interim solution, as was suggested in last Thursday’s debate.
As noble Lords will all be aware, parliamentary time has been at a premium in recent sessions, and I am afraid that, with other pressures, it has not yet been possible to find appropriate time to introduce these measures. However, I reassure your Lordships that this issue is a priority for this Government, and I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, some comfort. When our measures are introduced, I very much look forward to discussing these issues in detail again.
I hope that I have given enough reassurance and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment and spoken in its favour, and I thank the Minister for her considered reply.
Sentience is particularly important in the context of farm animals because of the trade in farm animals. They need to be seen as living, sentient beings, not as inanimate goods in the context of being traded. I agree that a limitation of the amendment is that sentience covers only farm animals, and clearly we want to see sentience brought in as a consideration for all animals.
I am concerned by the Minister’s statement that there will be new laws on animal sentience when there is time, as I feel that this is somewhat kicking it into the long grass, but I am glad to hear that priority will be given. At some point I would like to hear further when this will be, because it is so important that all animals, and farm animals in particular, are considered as sentient beings that feel pain and suffering.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to hear more from my noble friend and may consider bringing it back at the final stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 75. 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 any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 75
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use in certain wind conditions
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture at high wind speeds.(2) In particular, the regulations must make provision prohibiting the use of pesticides when wind speeds are high, near—(a) any dwelling;(b) any water source;(c) any public or private building or space where members of the public may be present.(3) Regulations under this section must specify a minimum distance between any of the locations listed under subsection (2)(a) to (c).”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in leading this group, I make it clear that the wording of my amendments is inferior to that of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I will not waste time on mine discussing wind speeds and contamination, et cetera, because I hope that he will move his amendment and that it will be supported across the House in a Division. If not, I will call a Division on his amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a most informative meeting with officials. They confirmed that, although some parts of EU regulations will be carried over into our legislation after next January, the unused powers on which nothing has yet been done will lapse.
There are three main pieces of relevant EU legislation. Regulation 1107/2009 permits individual pesticides and Regulation 396/2005 sets maximum residue levels for pesticides in food. But Directive 2009/128/EC, which sets a framework for action to ensure that pesticides are used responsibly and that alternatives are developed, is the most important here. It contains a mixture of things that member states “must” do and “may” do. The “musts” have been implemented in Great Britain through the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012. However, at the end of the transition period the powers in this directive that allow, but do not require, particular actions can no longer be used, because the European Communities Act 1972 will no longer be in force. So we will have a lacuna, unless the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is accepted.
Over the years, Defra has been aware of the problems. In 2017, Defra’s former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir Ian Boyd, published a paper in the journal Science entitled Toward Pesticidovigilance. This paper is a damning assessment of the regulatory approach worldwide to pesticides sprayed on crops, including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” have been ignored, and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change.
Many of these chemicals are hormone disruptors. Some of them mimic oestrogens, and it has been suggested that this could account for decreased sperm motility and sperm counts and male infertility, as well as for breast, bladder, thyroid and other hormone-dependent cancers, childhood cancers and even brain malignancies.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 78 and I need to make it absolutely clear that I intend to seek the opinion of the House on it when we reach it. I am very much indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her support and her indication that she will back my amendment. She has made a significant part of my case by identifying the medical impact of exposure to pesticides and the doubts about the authorisation process.
I also thank my co-signatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall—demonstrating the cross-party support for this vital but very simple and specific amendment.
I should also thank the Minister for the meeting to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred. It was useful but we did not agree. As the noble Baroness said, it appears that the department’s line is that there is no need for the amendment because, under EU law now transposed and retained in UK law, the Government already have the discretion to come forward with such regulations. Leaving aside the fact that they have not done so over the 11 years since that law was put in place, on closer examination that assertion appears to be only partly true, and from January, as the noble Baroness, explained, it will not be true at all. We therefore need to put such a provision in this legislation.
In this amendment we are addressing the effect of pesticides on human beings—on those who are exposed to doses of chemicals not designed for humans and in many cases, particularly among residents, on those subject to multiple exposures to multiple chemicals. We want to see a regulatory framework imposing minimum distances between the buildings in which people live and which the public frequent, and the spraying operations of pesticides.
Regrettably, we are not talking about unusual events. Most of the harm comes from everyday tractor-based pesticide spraying at certain times of the year. Local residents, schoolchildren, members of the public visiting public buildings, medical facilities and educational buildings, and other bystanders are all vulnerable.
We have rightly spent some time on this Bill talking about protecting wildlife, biodiversity, farm animals, watercourses and soil from harmful effects of agricultural practice. This amendment is a vital but limited step in the right direction to protect human beings—primarily, residents in rural areas—by requiring spraying to be well away from homes, public buildings and places where the public are congregated. In particular, it moves towards protecting those who live, full-time, adjacent to crops that are subject to blanket applications and those who attend public spaces adjacent to such fields. As I have said, this is a very simple amendment. It requires Ministers to come forward with regulations establishing a minimum distance between such applications and the buildings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has spelled out the terrible damage that can be done to humans by ingesting chemical pesticides directly into the lungs and bloodstream. Regrettably, pesticides—including some still used on UK farms and elsewhere—on their own or in combination, can cause the breakdown of the immune system and can poison the nervous system, and can cause cancer, mutations and birth defects. The noble Baroness has convincingly spelled that out.
Noble Lords will have received materials from campaigners on this issue, including from the redoubtable Georgina Downs, who has dossiers on rural families who have suffered. In Committee, I cited just a couple of those testimonies; I will now share a couple more. Chris from Sawtry said:
“We have farmers spraying near our home and school. The fumes cause headaches, dizziness and burn the throat.”
Victoria from Curry Rivel said:
“I have witnessed crops being sprayed just metres from my Daughter’s rural school and have had signs of chemical scorching on our fruit trees in our garden … Just meters from my Daughter’s sand pit!”
As I said in Committee, manufacturers rightly and responsibly label their pesticides, insecticides and herbicides with warnings, such as “Very toxic by inhalation”, “Do not breathe spray” and “Risk of serious damage to the eyes”. Farmers and farmworkers are advised under health and safety laws, and by manufacturers, to wear protective clothing, and most do so—but residents are not so protected. Guidance to users that they should inform residents, and that the chemical used should be clearly identified, is very frequently ignored and pretty well never enforced. Ministers and others have lauded the UK pesticides regime as one of the best in the world, but it is wrong to say that it, or the EU system, is safe. In particular, they are not protecting those who live close by.
This amendment would have the effect of protecting members of the public from hazardous health impacts near buildings. It is a simple, straightforward amendment requiring the Government to come up with minimum distances from the application of such pesticides. It is best to leave the precise distance for consultation and scientific measurement, but let us today establish the principle. My amendment is a very small but vital part of the journey to protect our rural populations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I support these amendments wholeheartedly. I would like to speak at length about them, but I will keep my remarks quite short so that we have plenty of time for a vote.
It seems strange that in America, Monsanto—or rather the new company, Bayer—is paying out $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims that Roundup causes cancer, yet it still claims that this a perfectly healthy product, does not put warning labels on the product and says that it is safe. It strikes me as very strange that anybody could deny that this amendment is necessary.
The amendment does not do what I would like it to do—that is, ban all pesticides from 9 am this morning—but it protects the more vulnerable people in our country. In particular, it protects children in schools, childcare settings and nurseries, people in hospitals, and people in any building used for human habitation. It seems such a sensible amendment—I do not know why the Government do not see that it is necessary.
I urge all noble Lords to please vote for this and make sure that the Government get the message very clearly.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to be able to put my name to Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and it is a pleasure to follow him. It is of course always a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Finlay.
There is no need for me to repeat the arguments that have been so ably put, except to say this. As Members who have been following our deliberations will know, I have been speaking about the importance of preserving our wildlife and biodiversity. One of the seminal works that I remember reading when I was very young was Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, in which she highlighted the devastating impacts of DDT on wildlife. However, this is much more fundamental: this is about protecting human life. If we have not yet learned that people sometimes assure us that everything is all right when it patently is not, we need think only of the tobacco industry—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said—and of asbestos. We would be failing ourselves, the public and our fellow human beings if we did not recognise the harmful nature of pesticides.
I am not an expert to know whether they should be banned entirely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has suggested. I am sure that there are many in the agricultural sector who say that they are incredibly important. However, one thing we can do is to get this amendment into the Bill, because it would protect so many people. It is not just about protecting those in rural communities, because the fumes can waft over other areas. I have not heard so far—although I am willing to hear it—the reasoning of my noble friend on the Front Bench, but from what I have heard so far, I am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I alert the House that we have been having some technical difficulties with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I hope that he is now on the line.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these amendments on controlling the application of pesticides. The amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others helpfully consider the consequences of different wind conditions, calling for the analysis and monitoring of effects, as well as for immediate limitations on pesticides use in wind conditions that threaten dwellings, water sources and members of the public. Her Amendment 76 usefully urges that when pesticides are already labelled as harmful, it should then become an offence to fail to inform residents living within a certain radius of the pesticide application that such an application is to occur. I am also in favour of Amendment 78, from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which seeks to ban pesticide applications near buildings where people live and work.
I come now to my own Amendment 80, which addresses two aspects: first, the need to develop targets for the adoption of integrated pest management associated with agroecological farming practices, including organic farming; and, secondly, and connected to these targets, to develop a system of analysis. This would monitor the reduction of harm to people and animals and the reduction of pesticide residues in food.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield gave a number of reassurances. These covered government backing for research into alternatives to pesticides and other chemicals. She pointed out that the transforming food programme, which includes methods such as robotics and vertical farming, might well cause pesticide use to diminish. As a result, does my noble friend agree that there is already consistency between what the Government confirm and what Amendment 80 seeks? Does she also consider that there is no divergence between confirmed government plans and the amendments in this grouping from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty? These latter amendments simply advocate safeguards and the expedience of good practice until alternatives to pesticides are successfully found.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too wish to speak in support of these amendments. I am pleased to learn that the Government say that they will carry on research into reducing the use of pesticides. There are perhaps somewhat controversial methods of reducing the use of pesticides, and one I will refer to is known as gene editing. This is a very significant variation on genetic modification, which was understandably opposed by many. Gene editing gives us an opportunity to do what plant breeders have done over the years and make plants less dependent on pesticides and more able to fight diseases. I would welcome a response from the Minister on the Government’s attitude towards gene editing as a contribution to the reduction in the use of pesticides.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as in the register. I wish to speak to Amendment 80 in this group, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. It seems to me that any government policy that reduces the use pesticides in British agriculture is, unarguably, desirable. Farmers, however, will be damaged economically if they are not able to use certain pesticides. Damage to the sugar beet crop in France, as reported recently in the Financial Times, is an example of this. If public money is to be used for public goods, reduced use of pesticides should be compensated by public money. The amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is a step in the right direction and I do hope the Government will accept it. Encouraging conversion to organic farming will, among other things, reduce pesticide use. But I completely take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in last week’s debate, that certified organic farming is not the only nature-friendly system of farming.
I really hope that the Government will give the opportunity for farmers from 2021—not 2024—to earn extra payments for nature-friendly farming practices, including by reducing the use of pesticides. Developing targets for integrated pest management and monitoring the effects of pesticide use, and reducing pesticide residues in food, are aspirations that I expect should be embraced by a Government committed to improving the environment, as this Government are.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. No? Then I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I spoke on similar amendments to these in Committee. I am happy to add my support to Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. My mind goes back to the days when the Countess of Mar was fighting a lonely battle against MAFF on sheep dips and the problems they caused. I am just concerned that the Government are perhaps not taking this issue as seriously as I would like them to.
I am attracted to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because it gives the Government flexibility. As I said in Committee, there is a difference between the effects of fungicides, herbicides and insecticides, depending on what you are spraying. Weather conditions make a difference, too. So further research is needed, but the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is trying to achieve is absolutely correct. There have been too many instances when the public have complained, particularly about nasty chemicals that have been sprayed, and some farmers do not take this issue as seriously as we would like.
I support my noble friend Lord Randall on the necessity of supporting biodiversity and wildlife. A lot of bees, birds and animals get caught up in spraying when they are nesting in hedgerows and the spray application is made in a bad way. So I give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will be able to convince him that the amendment should not be pushed to Division, but I do approve of the principle of it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to participate in this debate and would like to lend my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
There has been a lot of discussion over the last 40 years about the impact of pesticides on the human health of rural residents and on biodiversity, flora, fauna, insects and animals. Therefore, I am very much drawn to Amendment 78, which I believe is a crucial amendment, trying to protect human health from agricultural pesticides. Rural residents and communities across the UK continue to be adversely impacted by the cocktail of pesticides sprayed on crops in our localities, reporting various acute and chronic effects on health.
I am a rural dweller. I did not grow up on a farm but I am very conscious of the impact of those pesticides because I am an asthmatic. I have talked to many people whose health has been impacted by sheep dip, by Roundup and by the emergence of diseases that hitherto there was no family history of, and that they had not suffered from before. Exposure and risk for rural committees and residents are from the release of those cocktails of harmful agricultural pesticides into the air where people live and breathe because, once pesticides have been dispersed, their airborne droplets, particles and vapours are in the air irrespective of whether or not there is wind.
In that regard, I take note of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Vapour lift-off can occur days, weeks or months after any application, further exposing those living in the locality, and it has nothing to do with the wind. The Government’s stated position that pesticides are strictly regulated and that scientific assessment shows there are no risks to people and the environment, is simply not correct. Since 2009, EU and UK equivalent laws legally define rural residents living in a locality of pesticide-sprayed crops as a vulnerable group, recognised as having high pesticide exposure over the long term. Further, the risks of both acute and chronic effects of such exposure are again recognised in article 7 of the EU sustainable use directive. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this amendment. If not, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will press it to Division. It should be given statutory effect because rural populations are looking for this direction and this protection.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
I congratulate the authors of this interesting group of amendments on the thought and effort that they have put into them. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, will realise, I have some concerns about her amendments, particularly regarding the drafting and how they might be interpreted; for example, the word “drifting” is open to interpretation. The noble Baroness herself highlighted some of the difficulties this group would have. It would be enormously helpful if the Minister could explain the current regulations when summing up. I am not totally familiar with this area but I understand that it is heavily regulated and that there is quite stringent provision in the current code of practice, which is operated by the Health and Safety Executive and was itself updated quite recently, I think in 2005.
I am also concerned about Amendment 78, which is loosely drafted. Subsection (1) includes the phrase,
“prohibiting the application of any pesticide … near”.
That seems very loosely drafted, so I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks the provision could be implemented, were it to be passed today.
This is a good opportunity for the Minister to raise our awareness of previous research and commercial innovation relevant to air levels and other controls of pesticides. I am minded of the fact that a lot of work is going on, I think in Essex, breeding bugs that eat and destroy other bugs, which I presume would fall within the remit of Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee.
My concern is that, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this area is already heavily regulated and the amendments could be very difficult to implement as drafted.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, because I do not want to detain the House, this is the only amendment that I am speaking on today.
I strongly support Amendment 79 and have personal reasons for doing so, so I need to tell a story. It is about the late Dr Bill Fakes, an old friend of mine, a former GP in my former Workington constituency who I met nearly 50 years ago. He was a brilliant man—yes, a bit eccentric, but that is often the case with gifted people. He was a biologist with an intense interest in entomology. He had been brought up in the Fenlands in the small rural community of Willingham. It was a market garden, an arable area, and with his love of nature he took a particular interest in the ditches and characteristics of the land where, with other children and friends, he would gather beetles and other insects, carefully logging their every characteristic. As a bright boy inspired by these activities as a child, he went on to study medicine at UCL in London, ultimately ending up in Workington as a young—yes, rather eccentric but brilliant—general practitioner.
In 1995 Dr Fakes was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and ended up, via West Cumberland Hospital, at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, where a fellow medic and consultant took a particular interest in his condition. What they were not to know at that stage was that a number of his relatives and friends were subsequently to be stricken down with similar or associated conditions. They included his sister, his mother and one of his best young friends, Brian Haddon, all within a few years of each other and all from within the vicinity of the Fakes’ home in the Fens.
Dr Fakes’ response was to research his condition in detail, taking up much of his own time. Part of the research was to arrange for his pituitary gland, I think it was, to be removed from his body on death and sent for autopsy assessment at a special unit in Glasgow. Bill Fakes had been assiduous in making these arrangements as he believed that such an assessment would expose the danger of underregulated spraying arrangements. However, somewhere along the line the gland disappeared and was lost, and all the preparation came to nothing. Dr Fakes was convinced that his condition and that of his family and friends related directly to the use of pesticides in the vicinity of buildings and installations to which the public had access next to his home. He wanted all deaths in pesticide spray areas to be reviewed with a view to amendments to legislation dealing with pesticides, which brings me to Amendment 78 in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interest in Suffolk as in the register.
We are debating a number of amendments that could loosely be described as antipesticide. I am afraid I cannot support them because they would end up making the task of food production, which is the primary responsibility of the farmer, both harder and more expensive. As I have pointed out before, in Committee, some 70% of the taxable profit of farmers is composed of Brussels money; on my own farm the average figure over 14 years was 67%. As has been pointed out many times, switching money from the present system to environmental obligations inevitably reduces profitability, and it is in that context that we should consider these amendments.
I yield to no one in my devotion to sustainable and responsible farming that protects the environment and, indeed, enhances landscape, which in general is manmade—that is, made by farmers. I served three terms on the old Countryside Commission, two terms on the Rural Development Commission and five years as national chair of CPRE. A couple of years ago, I retired as president of the Suffolk Preservation Society after 20 years. I mention all this because, all too often, farmers are condemned without justification as people who are interested only in profit and short cuts and are not considerate.
We must make use of safe new technology when it is available, and this includes pesticides. Over the years, these chemicals have been more and more carefully tested and controlled to protect humans and animals, and all life in the environment. Many of the standards, rules and regulations on the use of chemicals are crucial; they must and will continue. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said that she would like all pesticides to be banned entirely, but, frankly, that is quite impractical.
I will give two examples where, lacking full justification and presumably formed on the precautionary principle—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has just mentioned this; it is all too often an excuse for sloppy thinking—the rules have actually been harmful to economic farming. These include rules on the use of treatments for seeds to grow two important UK crops, which are now banned. The first is on the use of a chemical called Cruiser for the treatment of sugar beet seeds to protect the crop from the devastating effects of a disease called virus yellows. This problem was mentioned a few moments ago by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
The second example is on the use of neonicotinoids for the seed of oilseed rape before it is planted to protect it from flea beetles, which can—and do—more than halve the yield. The ban on this seed treatment has led many farmers in the UK to give up growing oilseed rape. Of course, this merely means that the product is imported from Canada and the United States, where the bans do not exist. Obviously, I would have thought that there is no way in which the treatment of seeds under the ground can damage insects such as bees and butterflies, which feast on the nectar of a crop above the ground.
Of course, we must treat and use all chemicals with the greatest care and respect, but they are a crucial component of modern farming. I fear that these amendments are too wide and go too far, which is why I cannot support them.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope I can contribute to this debate by drawing on my farming interests and my experience. Of course, some of the latter is now history: I remember personally hot water treating daffodil bulbs in mercurial dips and, in my part of the world, there was widespread use of aerial spraying. Quite rightly, we live in very different times, as all of us using chemical applications have become more aware. The prohibition of noxious and dangerous chemicals, such as DDT, is well known, and all farmers and growers have an awareness of selectivity in their use of chemical sprays and dips. The use of broad-spectrum sprays is now rare, and most applications are for specific purposes.
Noble Lords will know, as a result of this debate, that a robust regulatory system of comprehensive scientific assessments is in place to ensure that pesticides are not used where their use may harm human or animal health or pose unacceptable risks to the environment. All these regulations include operator risk as well as risk to the general public. Assessments are carried out by a large team of specialist scientists at the Health and Safety Executive, and independent expert advice is provided by the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. This system derives from EU Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which sets the rules for assessing and authorising pesticides, and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which sets limits for pesticide residues in food. All of these regulations will be carried over in full to UK law at the end of the transition period.
This brings me to the specific amendments in this group, and I have a great deal of time for all the signatories to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a marvellous contributor to this House; I like, admire and enjoy listening to her, but it must be a long time since she was on a modern arable farm. Nowadays, she would see the precision with which sprays and chemicals are used; she would see the field margins adjacent to water courses and the headland nature strips. She would see modern sprayers, which bear no relation to the primitive things I used, with variable flow, nozzles and height. The operation of this kit is a highly skilled job and must be performed by a trained operator.
Farmers are a generous lot, but they do not spray their neighbours’ fields for them; neither do they spray the hedgerows, nor a neighbouring resident’s lawn. If noble Lords ever sought a contract with a multiple retailer—or even a third party who supplies a supermarket or chain—they would appreciate the high standards of husbandry and record-keeping that are required. Most farmers belong to accreditation groups as a consequence. When times are normal, I hope that the noble Baroness will join other noble Lords to visit our farm or, alternatively, attend a local LEAF Open Farm Sunday. Many people do. On our centennial open day last year, we had 500 visitors. If she stayed overnight, she would hear the sprayer go past between 5 and 6 in the morning, when winds are calm just before dawn, because that is the prime time to spray.
The thing that really upsets my nephew—he is responsible for our farming and growing and is active in many local farming groups and the drainage board—is that these amendments give the impression of a lack of trust. I will not repeat his critique of the well-intended but nightmare-inducing bureaucracy of the proposals in this group. We have over 100 fields on our farm plan, for example, and I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that our whole farm, except for 11 fields, is near one or two of the prohibited areas that he lists. How are noxious and persistent weeds and fungal infections going to be controlled with his measures in place?
I hope that my voice from the farm makes it clear that the use of pesticides, fungicides and other chemicals is not taken lightly by the industry and that the authors of these amendments will realise that, if we want more from our farmers in every way, we should maintain our confidence in them. This Bill will encourage farmers and growers, but we should not pass these amendments if we want the House and Parliament to retain their trust.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who has reminded us of the regulatory system in place at the Health and Safety Executive and given some examples of the impacts these amendments might have on farmers. I have added my name to Amendment 76, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and to Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am grateful to both for their detailed and excellent introductions to this topic.
The use of pesticides was mentioned at Second Reading and in Committee. It is a topic which raises a great deal of concern among those living in the countryside and rural areas. Farmers spray their crops with pesticides to protect them from pests and diseases. However, some farmers—not all—do not exercise care when doing this, and their chemicals drift over neighbouring lands and properties, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned. These chemicals can be extremely toxic and for citizens to breathe them in is likely to have a very adverse effect, especially for those already suffering from respiratory diseases. It is not unreasonable for those likely to suffer from pesticide drift to be notified by the farmer of the fact that they are planning to spray their crops on a certain day at a certain time, so that neighbours may stay indoors or be elsewhere during the process. Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is specific about the type of buildings which farmers would be prohibited from spraying near. It is essential that our young children should be protected from inhalation of toxic chemicals. Their lungs are fragile. Hospitals where the sick and chronically ill will be cared for by NHS staff should be similarly protected.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by referencing my interests at Rothamsted Research, as recorded in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments. They have all given powerful examples of the public health concerns that arise from close contact with pesticides. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay said, sadly, all too often our experience has been that the health problems come to light when the damage has already been done. You cannot blame the public for their scepticism when they are assured that chemicals are safe, because the reality all too often appears further down the line.
My noble friend Lord Whitty specifically raises concerns about the impact on those living and working adjacent to fields which are regularly sprayed. Farm workers have the details of the chemicals involved and, we hope, the appropriate protective clothing, but no such provision is made for the local population, so the provision in my noble friend’s amendment for a minimum distance to be set by regulation between private land being sprayed and nearby residential areas seems eminently sensible.
When we debated this in Committee, we argued for research into alternative methods of pest and disease control, in keeping with the wider aspirations of the Bill to deliver integrated pest management and greater biodiversity. We also argued that targets should be set for the reduction in pesticide use. This becomes eminently achievable as precision farming techniques become more widespread, and these issues were rightly raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in speaking to his amendment. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that what he is describing is best practice, not universal practice, and this is where the problems lie.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed that once we have left the EU at the end of the year, we will take responsibility for our own decisions on pesticide use in the UK. She also confirmed that the Government will consult on a national action plan to reduce pesticide use later this year, so it would be helpful if the noble Lord could update your Lordships on the timetable for that consultation and the progress to date. Can he also confirm that any recommendations will continue to be based on the precautionary principle?
In the meantime, the challenge of my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment is more immediate and pressing. Whatever the Government’s overall plans for pesticide reduction, there are likely to be continuing problems for those living close to fields that are being sprayed. This is an immediate issue of public health protection. I therefore hope that the Minister is able to provide some reassurance to my noble friend that action to protect those residents is being planned as part of the wider review. If he is unable to satisfy my noble friend, I make it clear that if my noble friend pushes it to a vote, we will support him. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, bringing with them experience of agriculture or medical specialism. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I should first say to all noble Lords that the Government are committed to protecting people and the environment from the potential risk posed by pesticides. As I will explain, the Government have a robust regulatory system in place to ensure that pesticides are not used where that may harm human health. The use of pesticides is allowed only where a comprehensive scientific assessment shows that people will not be harmed. The scientific risk assessment carried out before pesticides are authorised covers all situations where people may be exposed to pesticides, including risks to residents and bystanders from the volatilisation of the pesticide’s active substance after application of the product. Products found to have an unacceptable risk from exposure would not be authorised.
The risks of possible pesticide spray-drift from pesticide use are assessed before a new pesticide product is authorised. This includes the effect of different factors, including wind speed, and the results are used to set specific statutory conditions of use for that pesticide as we only authorise products that will not have any harmful effect on human health.
The label on a pesticide product is the main source of information for the user of that pesticide. Phrases such as those listed in Amendment 76 relate to the classification of the concentrated product rather than the diluted spray. The information is required to minimise the user’s exposure and to ensure that they use the product safely and effectively. All users of pesticides are required to follow the statutory conditions of use for any pesticides they use. They should also follow the guidance contained in the Code of Practice for Using Plant Protection Products. The code requires that all users take reasonable precautions to protect the health of people, creatures and plants, to safeguard the environment, and, in particular, to avoid pollution of water. The code specifies that users must ensure that pesticides are only applied in the appropriate weather conditions with the correct, properly adjusted equipment, and that applications must be confined to the area intended to be treated. Collectively, these controls ensure that people are properly protected, based on appropriate risk assessments. They allow pesticides to be used where this is safe and will help UK farmers to provide a supply of high-quality affordable food.
The Government are committed to monitoring the impacts of the use of agricultural pesticides. Indeed, monitoring schemes are in place to report on the level of usage of each pesticide and on residue levels in food. They also collect and consider reports of possible harm to people or to the environment. We will continue to review the monitoring arrangements to ensure that they remain effective in supporting the authorisation process.
Turning to Amendment 80, I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising integrated pest management and the more precise use of pesticides, including through new technologies and new concepts, to which my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred. Pesticide users can reduce the need for pesticides, further reducing risks to the environment, combating pest resistance and supporting agricultural productivity. This is very important for all farmers: pest resistance is another issue we must contend with. The Government have made a commitment in the 25-year environment plan to putting integrated pest management at the heart of their approach. There are advances in this area that we should all champion.
A number of points have been made by noble Lords, but I particularly want to pick up the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and deal with the precise issue of lacuna and gap. That is precisely why the upcoming consultation on the draft updated UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides will set out how the Government will deliver our 25-year environment plan commitment. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend the Duke of Wellington that as part of this, the Government are considering the extent to which targets may support the delivery of integrated pest management. The consultation on the national action plan will be launched later this year and will set out these plans in more detail. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, that in Committee we had an extensive debate on gene editing and as I said then, we believe that the best way forward is to have a full and proper consultation on those matters.
I turn now to Amendment 78. I was very pleased to meet the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to discuss these matters. The Government agree that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health or pose unacceptable risks to the environment. By pesticides, we mean all the plant protection products commonly used in agriculture and beyond, including herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. A robust regulatory system is in place to deliver that objective and to make sure that an authorised product, used correctly, does not harm people. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that system derives from EU law and, in particular, Regulation 1107/2009, setting out the rules for assessing and authorising pesticides, and Regulation 396/2005, setting limits for pesticide residues in food. All this EU legislation will be carried over in full into UK law at the end of the transition period.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the detail that he has afforded to this group of amendments and for his reply. I will make some very short comments. He speaks about consultation going forward; that is precisely the consultation required to inform the regulations to which the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, speaks. He talks about areas around railways and wastelands, which could become wildlife sanctuaries but are not at the moment because of the way they are handled.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that the lack of trust is not in farmers but in the pesticide manufacturers. The spraying kit that he is talking about is incredibly expensive, as I know from seeing it at the Royal Welsh Show. It is eye-wateringly expensive and costs a lot to maintain, so is not within the reach of every farmer.
I do not want to waste time discussing my amendments. I point out that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has rightly said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is flexible. It is simply about making regulations; it does not state what has to be in them, in terms of distance or children, and they would go to affirmative resolution. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and give notice that, in the event of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, being unable to call a vote on his Amendment 78, I will do so on his behalf.
Lord Whitty
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—(a) any building used for human habitation;(b) any building or open space used for work or recreation; or (c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries;(ii) hospitals.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) to (c) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.(3) For the purposes of this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would protect members of the public from hazardous health impacts from the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spelled out, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 79. 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 79
The Earl of Dundee
“Planning guidance for agricultural smallholdings
The Secretary of State may create planning guidance for local authorities to facilitate the development of combined smallholding home and work spaces for the following purposes—(a) to encourage the construction of affordable rural houses;(b) to create employment in farming and ancillary enterprises;(c) to increase supplies of locally grown fresh food to improve food security;(d) to increase productivity and profitability through agroecological farming on smallholdings; and(e) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, regenerate soil fertility and nurture biodiversity through smallholder farming.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable the Government to give guidelines to local authorities to encourage combined smallholding home and workspace development, thus promoting employment whilst also increasing local food supplies through productive and profitable agroecological smallholder farming.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, this proposed new clause would enable the Government to give guidance to local authorities. Many new entrepreneurs would like to set up agricultural smallholdings and to start viable businesses connected with high-quality jobs to do with farming and local food production, but are still prevented by restrictive planning regulations. The aim instead should clearly be to encourage innovative smallholding and workplace developments, promoting employment and affordable housing as well as increasing local food supplies through more productive and profitable agroecological farming. Since such smallholdings deliver significant public goods to the environment and society, they deserve full recognition and backing within planning policy.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee, not so much in terms of planning guidelines but instead to ask the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, what his views were on the scope and benefit of these projects. He could not have been more supportive. He pointed out that the Government, as stated in Defra’s Farming for the Future: Policy and Progress Update last February,
“intend to use the powers under Clause 1 to offer funding to councils, landowners and other organisations to invest in … opportunities for new entrants to access land”.
He also mentioned the Government’s resolve to “work with local authorities” and other institutions, mentioning that
“further details will be set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plan.”—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2134.]
He drew our attention to how local authorities would now be able to use rural sites for the delivery of affordable housing and how the National Planning Policy Framework will help the building of homes in isolated areas.
I am very grateful to my noble friend and, regarding smallholdings, much heartened by the positive background he explained. However, there are two different kinds of smallholding under discussion: county farms controlled by local authorities and the different kind of smallholding, not owned or controlled by local authorities yet entirely dependent on permission from local authorities to be able to establish or develop at all. Perhaps these two types may not have been sufficiently distinguished from each other in Committee. That is why I have brought back a revised amendment on planning guidance.
For instance, a modern agricultural smallholding might well combine farming with other work. Residents would have two occupations: farming some land and working from home. An example could be 30 houses and 180 acres of farmland, thus six acres per unit. A typical occupant might farm vegetables in polytunnels while also working part-time as an IT consultant via high-speed internet.
Post coronavirus, two interconnected trends emerge: a greater demand for property in the countryside and the growing potential of being able to work from home. The proposals outlined therefore fit in with those new demands and facilities. At the same time, such projects would provide excellent fresh produce to local urban markets, as a result strengthening the United Kingdom’s food security while advancing government plans for the countryside by increasing opportunities for rural employment.
In connection with the Bill, the farming methods adopted by these smallholdings would qualify for financial assistance for the purposes detailed in Clause 1. In view of their relevance to the purposes of the Bill, yet taking into account the tendency of local authorities hitherto to be restrictive, does my noble friend Lady Bloomfield agree, first, that the Secretary of State might now give planning guidance to local authorities to facilitate the development of combined home and work spaces for the purposes outlined in this amendment? Secondly, even if planning permissions are now less likely to be withheld or procrastinated over than they previously have been, there would be all the more consistency if the Government were to offer such guidance as envisaged. In any case, I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I briefly give my full-hearted support to the noble Earl and his proposal. Again, I draw on my own experience at both MAFF and Defra and, at one time, as the Planning Minister, when I had a predisposition to facilitate the use of what you could term redundant farm buildings for other uses, be they housing or small enterprises—sometimes start-up or incubator units. I realise that it is not easy, and I know local authorities are suspicious because there have been abuses in the past. I realise that they sometimes want to limit the footprint of redundant buildings being extended too much, but the fact is that we need a national guideline for the flexibility.
The noble Earl pointed out that there are two classes of situation here. Local authorities could be deemed to be giving planning permission to themselves— or, indeed, not giving it—where they own the county farms. It is always a problem when one has to have these separate walls in local authorities. It does not always look fair.
I give my support for all the flexibility the Minister can give, by way of encouragement to local authorities under the planning system, for more modern uses of agricultural buildings. The idea of affordable housing and issues ancillary to farming are fine; I would go much further than that, but I rest on supporting the noble Earl.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
I first declare an interest as a member of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, which has done a lot of work on agriculture. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on an excellent amendment. We certainly need to encourage new entrants and young farmers.
Looking at some statistics about farming apprenticeships, I was interested that they talked about a 2.7% growth in the industry as a whole and something like 137,000 people leaving the industry, so there are plenty of opportunities there. Is it currently easy for new entrants and young farmers? All the evidence we see is that you have to be very determined.
This is a really worthwhile amendment. It falls in line with our new approach to farming subsidies and the 25-year plan. It is a golden opportunity to put the emphasis, as it says, on sustainability and care of the environment. New young people coming into the industry will give it a fresh look; they are much better versed in the new technology. The point the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made about housing is also important. We need to recognise that it is not enough just to create the opportunity; we also need to enable people to live near their place of work.
The other point I would like to emphasise is that there is, as we have heard in this debate, an awful lot of best practice out there and a lot of good farming going on. Finding the opportunity for those farmers to buddy up with new entrants to act as mentors would be really good.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned food security and fresh produce. In addition, there would likely be less food waste. Giving guidance to local authorities also seems a sensible part of this amendment. I welcome the amendment and give it my full support. I trust we will have a positive and constructive response from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, with whom I have the privilege to sit on the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I have just two questions for my noble friend the Minister. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for providing the opportunity to ask them in the context of Amendment 79.
What I find attractive about this amendment—and I hope my noble friend will agree—is that it is currently notoriously difficult for new entrants to penetrate national parks. Would my noble friend see some merit in an amendment along these lines to ease the restrictions, allowing new entrants to enter into agriculture, particularly in national parks such as the North York Moors National Park?
Another reason to find Amendment 79 attractive is subsection (a), which seeks
“to encourage the construction of affordable rural houses.”
It is often overlooked that one of the reasons it is extremely difficult for older farmers to retire and cease to actively farm is that there is nowhere for them to go. There are large houses and executive-style houses, but there is a lack of affordable homes with one or two bedrooms in rural areas. I have seen some in Hovingham, which are part of the Hovingham estate, and they are tastefully done, but I would hope that this could be more widespread. That is why I hope my noble friend will use an opportunity such as the wording of this amendment, perhaps in a more appropriate place than the Agriculture Bill, to ensure that there is a supply of affordable rural houses for those who wish to make way for younger members of the family to take over the farming commitment. We need somewhere for them to go.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has withdrawn from this amendment, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, when this Bill was in Committee, I had the privilege of contributing on really critical issues to do with the protection of the environment and landscape, proper husbandry of soil for our future, the well-being of livestock, and the importance of protecting and securing our food supply, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly and good for our health. I believe that the amendment of the noble Earl contributes to this. It is clearly beneficial for smallholdings to be able to draw together all those key elements—the protection of the countryside and the decent ways we can grow our food and husband our livestock.
The intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is an important one. A third of the land-mass of the city of Sheffield is actually in the Peak District National Park, and a co-ordinated approach between local government and the park planning board to providing smallholdings and protecting those that still exist is really important, and that applies to national parks elsewhere.
The University of Sheffield is undertaking some creative and imaginative work on food production, which is being used around the world. That could be applied—expertise goes with the willingness of people to take on opportunity.
As the noble Earl described, the ability to work from home is now greater than ever, not just because people have learned during the Covid pandemic how to use the equipment but because the equipment is now more useable. People can combine one activity with husbanding the soil, and get a great quality of life from doing so. It also helps with local procurement, which will be an important issue, and therefore with the protection of our future food supply. It also benefits major urban areas, such as my own, where allotments have historically been critical, as well as smallholdings. Edward Carpenter, many years ago, was able to combine his wider activities with husbanding the land, and many examples of that sort exist.
I entirely support the noble Earl’s intentions this afternoon, but I offer one word of warning. I pay credit to Francis Wheen’s biography of Marx for this gem. Marx was once eulogising in one of the communist cells about how they would husband the land and livestock in the morning, then be able to write and have leisure and pleasure in the afternoon. One of those listening said, “And who will clean our shoes?” The answer came as fast as you would expect from Karl Marx: “You will”. Marxists have always felt that somebody would do something that would ensure that their lives were a little easier.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others argued that we will need to take action to promote the development of smallholdings in the variety of ways that they may manifest. The noble Earl has proposed that there should be guidance for local authorities to encourage the development, through smallholdings, of affordable rural housing, as well as to provide employment, promote biodiversity, reduce emissions, and improve soil fertility and the supply of local food. These are very ambitious and imaginative aims, and he introduced his proposals in a very compelling fashion with some very experienced supporters.
There will be areas around the country where local authorities are supportive of this sector; there are others where the sense in the farming community is that the local authorities face the town and never look to the countryside. Challenges to the latter are never addressed, even though the countryside is, at the very least, important for those in the town.
There is considerable concern about how the Government are currently reducing planning guidelines. This looks like a benign way forward, but post Brexit and post coronavirus, local authorities will be even more overstretched. They may not have the resources currently to be looking at this area effectively as well; they will need imagination and expertise. If this amendment is agreed, the Government will need to make sure that any such extra task is properly resourced, or it may mean little. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 79 follows on from previous debates about how the Government and the devolved Administrations can support the agricultural sector and its workers in providing homes, job opportunities and so forth. Its specific focus on smallholdings is welcome and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. The priorities identified by the noble Earl’s amendment are perfectly legitimate, particularly the emphasis on locally grown food and steps to improve environmental performance, which arguably go hand in hand. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, we need national guidelines so that flexibility can be given to local authorities for more modern uses.
Presumably, the amendment extends to England and Wales only, as is the case with Clause 34. It is important to recognise the doubly devolved nature of planning, whereby responsibility is split between national and local government, and for this reason it is not clear how quickly or effectively any new guidance would filter down. As a lifelong educator, I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green’s suggestion of a buddy or mentoring scheme whereby farmers who are using new technology could be encouraged to support those in the industry who may need help in the use of those technologies. I would be grateful if the Minister identified any existing or planned schemes in this area.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I detect a greater degree of consensus on this amendment than on some others we will debate this afternoon. I am grateful to my noble friend the Earl of Dundee for the amendment. For many years, local authorities and other smallholding estates have provided valuable opportunities for new entrant farmers, enhancing the rural economy and bringing new energy and skills into the sector.
Smallholdings, as we have heard, provide excellent opportunities for sustainably produced, locally sourced food, helping to deliver our environmental objectives and increasing food security, which a number of speakers have described as a priority. That is why this Government are committed to supporting local authorities to facilitate the development of smallholding estates. I assure my noble friend that the Government intend to use the financial assistance powers already provided under Clause 1(2) to deliver the kinds of outcomes he is seeking.
The Government’s future farming policy update, published in February, committed to offering financial assistance to local authorities, landowners and other organisations to invest in the development of small- holdings in order to create more opportunities for new entrant farmers in future. We believe this will provide greater incentives for local authorities and other landowners to invest in the development of more smallholdings than would providing planning guidance. We want to encourage investment that will not only create more smallholding opportunities but provide guidance and mentoring to new farmers in order to develop sustainable and profitable farming businesses.
In addition, local authorities can take advantage of rural exception sites to help the delivery of affordable housing, and the revised national planning policy framework includes new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm businesses with succession. I say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who I recognise has a very relevant background in both Defra and housing, that in July 2018 the Government launched the revised national planning policy framework, which offers new support to rural areas. The rural housing chapter gives strong support for rural exception sites and the NPPF has new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm succession. Indeed, the Government have increased permitted development rights for redundant farm buildings from three to five dwellings.
In April 2018, the Government amended the national permitted development right supporting rural housing and agricultural productivity. The Government recognise that work and home smallholdings are also provided by other organisations and that these require council planning approval. Guidance to councils on planning matters is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with which my department works closely and will continue to engage with on these matters. My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised this issue, which we are well aware of, particularly since my noble friend the Minister has national parks within his portfolio. We recognise the importance of balancing the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty with enabling the businesses and communities within them to flourish. I hope I have provided all noble Lords, particularly my noble friend, with enough reassurance and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
No noble Lord has indicated to me that they wish to come in after the Minister, so I call the Earl of Dundee.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their comments and support, as I am to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for her positive evaluation of this amendment. As already indicated, the focus here is not upon the merits of agricultural smallholdings, which are already recognised by the Government and by your Lordships. The issue instead is whether the Government should give planning guidance for local authorities to facilitate these developments. My own view, shared perhaps by many noble Lords, is that such government guidance would not unreasonably constrain or inhibit local authorities; yet at the same time, it would help to reduce restrictions and delays. I understand that my noble friend might feel that this cannot immediately be done, but I appreciate the very positive context in which she is considering doing it. As time moves on, the Government might increasingly take a view which is translated to local authorities to good effect. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
30 Before section 28 insert—“27A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms(1) The appropriate authority must by regulations make provision for the tenant of an agricultural holding to refer for arbitration under this Act a request made by the tenant to the landlord where—(a) the request falls within subsection (3), and(b) no agreement has been reached with the landlord on the request.(2) The regulations may also provide that, where the tenant is given the right to refer a request to arbitration, the landlord and tenant may instead refer the request for third party determination under this Act. (3) A request falls within this subsection if—(a) it is a request for—(i) the landlord’s consent to a matter which under the terms of the tenancy requires such consent, or(ii) a variation of the terms of the tenancy, or(iii) the landlord’s consent to a matter which otherwise requires such consent,(b) it is made for the purposes of—(i) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in the regulations, or(ii) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in the regulations, applicable to the tenant, or(iii) securing either or both of the full and efficient farming of the holding and an environmental improvement, and(c) it meets such other conditions (if any) as may be specified in the regulations.(4) The regulations may provide for the arbitrator or third party on a reference made under the regulations, where the arbitrator or third party considers it reasonable and just (as between the landlord and tenant) to do so—(a) to order the landlord to comply with the request (either in full or to the extent specified in the award or determination); or(b) to make any other award or determination permitted by the regulations.(5) The regulations may (among other things) make provision—(a) about conditions to be met before a reference may be made;(b) about matters which an arbitrator or third party is to take into account when considering a reference;(c) for regulating the conduct of arbitrations or third party determinations;(d) about the awards or determinations which may be made by the arbitrator or third party, which may include making an order for a variation in the rent of the holding or for the payment of compensation or costs;(e) about the time at which, or the conditions subject to which, an award or determination may be expressed to take effect;(f) for restricting a tenant’s ability to make subsequent references to arbitration where a reference to arbitration or third party determination has already been made under the regulations in relation to the same tenancy.(6) The provision covered by subsection (5)(e) includes, in the case of a request made for the purpose described in subsection (3)(b)(i), conditions relating to the making of a successful application for assistance.(7) In this section—“appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance under—(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance),(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (exceptional market conditions: powers available to Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers),(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) of that Act (third party schemes), or (d) a scheme of financial assistance in whatever form introduced by Welsh Ministers;“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—(a) an Act of Parliament;(b) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales or Senedd Cymru; (c) retained direct EU legislation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides the ability for farm tenants letting under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 to object to a landlord’s refusal to enter into a specific financial assistance scheme in the same way as farm tenants letting under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 89ZA. 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 35: Marketing standards
Amendment 89ZA
Lord Grantchester
“( ) where a product is imported, a statement of compliance with the relevant domestic standards and regulations specified under section (Requirement for agricultural and food imports to meet domestic standards).”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
At the start of the House’s considerations on day three of Report, I declare my interests as stated in the register, and that I am in receipt of funds under the CAP system.
I rise to move Amendment 89ZA in my name, and I thank my co-signatories to Amendment 93—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—for transferring their support to this amendment as well. This amendment relates to subsection (2) of Clause 35, “Marketing standards”, in Part 5. That imported food products comply with British domestic standards needs to be backed up with certainty for the British consumer. Clause 35 also specifies Schedule 4, where agricultural products are made relevant to marketing standard provisions.
It is vital that the Bill sets the vision for the future approach of the UK’s agricultural and food policy. It can also signal to existing and future trading partners that the UK is committed to championing high quality and high standards in food around the world. While the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission may have calmed some people, the temporary and limited nature of that body—which we will discuss in a later group of amendments—has served only to energise others.
There was a lot of debate in Committee on labelling, and this will be reflected today in discussions on amendments in the next group. In the UK, there are several quality schemes—the Red Tractor mark, Freedom Food, British Lion, organic and many others—which allow consumers to know at a glance that the products they are purchasing meet certain requirements. While these should continue to act as identifiers of quality British product, rather than being extended in their scope, Amendment 89ZA would allow the department to introduce the merits of some form of “meeting UK standards” badge. However, labelling would not work universally in practice, as 50% of food is consumed outside the home. The importance of the food service sector has been highlighted repeatedly throughout discussions on the Bill. That is why the amendment is linked intrinsically to Amendment 93 in this group, which I shall speak to now.
I am grateful that the Government agree that Amendment 93 is understood to be consequential to Amendment 89ZA. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for adding her name to this amendment, signalling how important this is to her and her party. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for consistently championing high standards in production methods, the environment and the importance of nutrition.
The strong theme running through your Lordships’ deliberations on the Bill is that of standards. This is not just a matter of food safety. Standards are important in husbandry methods—agricultural, horticultural and forestry—environmental and climate aspects, food nutrition and labelling, and imported foodstuffs marketed in this country. This group of amendments will determine how the UK’s standards will be set at the outset of our EU exit, and how they will be maintained.
Low-quality food cannot be allowed to jeopardise rural communities by undercutting UK farmers with product made using methods that would be illegal here. The National Farmers’ Union mounted a campaign on production standards that attracted over 1 million signatures. A Which? report found that British people really care about their food and expect that the UK will maintain high standards and, with time, enhance them—95% of respondents agreed with such a statement.
Consumers care about the welfare implications of, for example, US production methods that necessitate that chickens need chlorination to be made safe. They do not want chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef to be permitted to be imported and available on supermarket shelves. Voters who voted to get Brexit done can be forgiven for thinking that this was going to be enshrined in legislation—after all, it was in the Conservative Party manifesto. Now certainly is the chance to get it done here. In the Commons, a previous Conservative Government Minister, Neil Parish, proposed a similar amendment. He is now chairman of the prestigious Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.
This amendment makes various key improvements. It prevents any agri-food chapters of a trade agreement being ratified unless, first, the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement confirming that any products imported into the UK will meet the minimum production standards of British law at the time of entry into the country. Secondly, the Secretary of State must lay regulations specifying a process for determining that the standards to which an imported food product has been produced or processed
“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene and traceability, and plant health”.
Thirdly, the House of Commons must approve the relevant trade deal chapters, and your Lordships’ House must debate them, in much the same fashion as it did the Brexit withdrawal deal.
Supermarkets have also endorsed the commitment to protect British food standards from dilution in trade deals. Waitrose and Aldi have committed to not stock lower-standard imported food. Just recently, the first stage of the Defra-commissioned national food strategy, chaired by Henry Dimbleby, also called for such a verification programme of core standards for imported food.
I turn now to Amendments 94 to 96, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. His explanatory statements claim that Amendment 93 as drafted is inconsistent with the WTO’s sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as it refers to domestic, not international, standards. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I read a short extract from the WTO’s own guidance on SPS agreements:
“The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures sets out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards. It allows countries to set their own standards. But it also says regulations must be based on science. They should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. And they should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between countries where identical or similar conditions prevail. Member countries are encouraged to use international standards, guidelines and recommendations where they exist. However, members may use measures which result in higher standards if there is scientific justification. They can also set higher standards based on appropriate assessment of risks so long as the approach is consistent, not arbitrary.”
Finally, the last part says:
“The agreement still allows countries to use different standards and different methods of inspecting products.”
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to support Amendments 89ZA and 93, both of which I have signed. Noble Lords have received repeated assurances from the Government that, to quote from the most recent Defra briefing note,
“in all future trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”.
With this assurance, why is Amendment 93 needed? For me, there are unanswered questions and uncertainties about the Government’s statement. I will summarise some of them.
First, the wording of the Defra briefing notes that I have just quoted avoids saying that there will be no imported food of lower standards than UK-produced food. Perhaps this is because the Government consider that imposing certain domestic standards on imports may breach WTO rules as “technical barriers to trade”. This was just discussed in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. According to the interim report from Henry Dimbleby, we are already able to import certain commodities produced in ways that would not be allowed in the UK—for instance, using neonicotinoid pesticides. It is also unclear whether the pledge that the Government make applies only to novel foods, as it refers to the future, or to existing approved foods. My first question is: what is the Government’s position?
My second question is: what is meant by food standards? Standards is a vague term that can mean different things to different people. How do the Government define it? For instance, do they include food production standards in the definition?
Thirdly, it is not clear what role the Food Standards Agency and its sister organisation Food Standards Scotland will play alongside other bodies mentioned by Defra, namely the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive. This is pertinent, as the Food Standards Agency is an independent, non-ministerial department while the other bodies are not independent—they are executive agencies, or non-departmental public bodies, directly accountable to their parent departments. Will the Food Standards Agency advise on welfare and environmental standards as well as on food safety standards?
Fourthly, the Defra statement does not say who will police production standards of imported food as it crosses the border. The Food Standards Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency currently check food safety and phytosanitary standards, but not production standards.
Fifthly, the Food Standards Agency will have to carry out additional duties in future. Has it been given sufficient additional resources in its baseline to carry these out? If so, who has determined the amount of extra money required?
Sixthly, and finally, the briefing says that decisions on imported foods will be taken by Health Ministers informed by the advice of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. What are the other factors that Ministers will take into consideration when making these decisions? The briefing implies that they will not simply follow the advice of the FSA or FSS but will take other factors into account.
It is only by supporting Amendments 89ZA and 93 that we can be sure that the Government are bound to their commitment not to import food of lower standards than our own domestic products. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions but, as things stand, I will support these amendments if there is a vote and urge other noble Lords to do the same.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Krebs. I, too, thoroughly support the amendment. I apologise for my internet connection and hope that noble Lords can hear me.
Food is already in a mess, before we even contemplate lowering the standards that we have. For instance, we already know that chlorinated chicken is just the tip of the iceberg of bad food that comes into this country. I am greatly worried not just about the environmental impacts of cheap and bad food on the planet but also about its health implications. Bad food is the result of overconsumption and overproduction of processed, sugary foods, yet recently US negotiators have said that they were concerned that labelling food with high sugar content
“is not particularly useful in changing consumer behaviour”.
Anyone who has been involved in food politics knows that that is rubbish. It is like saying that labelling a packet of cigarettes as jolly good for your health is a way that will not help change consumer behaviour. This is completely contrary to over 20 years of UK policy to introduce clear, front-of-pack, traffic-light nutrition information to help shoppers easily identify which products are high in sugar, salt and fat. Reading any of the Government’s proposed new obesity strategies shows that this labelling is planned to be even clearer.
Across the world, labelling is already incredibly complicated. The industry likes it like that. It does not want things to be simple. However, there are people around the world trying to deal with this. For instance, the Health Minister in Chile recently decided that no cereal companies could use cartoons to sell their products, so Tony the Tiger disappeared, replaced by a black splodge. Children now tell their parents not to eat that cereal. If we do not set high standards, we will never be able to change things like this. We will not even be able to label sugar clearly.
I am also very worried about what will come into this country. Why on earth do we need more American biscuits? If you take a biscuit such as Tim Tams, a chocolate-covered cream biscuit, extremely like a Penguin, we will get this in spades and it will be cheaper than the Penguin, which already sells to 99.1% of households. Low-quality food is unhealthy food. It has usually meant deforestation in its production, terrible treatment of animals and, as I said the other day, there are over 60 billion of them; 80% of all living creatures on earth sit in cages waiting to be fed to us.
We have fought very hard for our high standards, and it seems quite extraordinary that at a moment of extreme crisis in health and the environment, we should even need to have this debate, let alone have the feeling that the Government might try to overrule it when this Bill goes back to the Commons. Even supermarkets are agreed that we cannot lower our standards. I listened the other day to Christiana Figueres say that we only have 10 years to get on top of the climate crisis, and that in 10 years we must cut our emissions by 50%. Food and agriculture contribute hugely to this, and if we do not have standards that look at the environmental impact, then quite frankly, we have not got a prayer. Next year, we are leading the COP. We should now be talking about achieving higher standards, not fighting to defend the ones that we already have.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is a leading light on the advisory panel of the Dimbleby report, which I will refer to shortly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving the lead amendment in this group. I do not intend to repeat many of the comments that have been made; he has very eloquently addressed the issues of the amendments in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others, which purport to fall foul of the World Trade Organization.
I shall speak initially to Amendment 90, and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who have been on this journey with a similar amendment in the original rollover trade Bill, on which we made a lot of progress. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rather annoyingly, got in before me by tabling the amendment that was carried. We will discuss that further in the context of the trade Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said when moving Amendment 89ZA, this is an issue that consumers and farmers care passionately about. It was front and centre of the Conservative manifesto—not that I saw that—which we want to build on with this amendment, to then adopt what was originally government policy in the rollover trade Bill. I will not refer to it, but it complements Amendment 97 which follows later.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, referred to part 1 of the interim report by Henry Dimbleby—I almost called him a noble Lord—in the National Food Strategy. On page 7 he refers to
“grasping the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decide what kind of trading nation we want to be. The essence of sovereignty is freedom—including the freedom to uphold our own values and principles within the global marketplace. In negotiating our new trade deals, the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justly proud. It should also have the confidence to subject any prospective deals to independent scrutiny: a standard process in mature trading nations such as the United States, Australia and Canada. If we put the right mechanisms in place, we can ensure high food standards, protect the environment and be a champion of free trade.”
There we have it. We are taking back control. I applaud that in this sea change, for the first time in nigh-on 50 years, we will decide how we trade.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I reassure noble Lords that I intend to speak only once, despite being listed to speak twice on this group.
I put my name to Amendment 90 because it echoed the form of words that the Government accepted in early 2019—only 18 months ago—and it was inserted into the Trade Bill. Now, the Government are no longer prepared to sign up to it. I puzzled over what had changed, but now, given the events of the past two weeks, the answer has become clear. The May Government intended to align the United Kingdom with European regulatory standards. The Johnson Government are not happy to do this and, instead, in the event of no deal or a very skinny deal, want the option to pivot to the United States regulatory regime.
It is clear that a choice has to be made, as the two regimes are very different. If we align with European standards, there will be no issue with our existing animal welfare, hygiene or food standards. However, if we switch to United States regulatory standards, without which a trade deal with the United States will be very unlikely, if not impossible, British agriculture and British farmers will face great challenges, and many, I fear, will lose their livelihood.
Some noble Lords argued in Committee that farmers would rise to the challenge and would find a way to compete successfully in the United States market, but I must tell them that, for a start, those exporting lamb would have great problems, as Americans generally do not eat lamb. My guess is that farmers would struggle to access United States markets, save perhaps in niche areas.
Since Committee, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has been published and has passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons. This presents a further threat to British agriculture, as it would allow cheap food imports to circulate freely around the United Kingdom, except in Northern Ireland. This is of course exactly what United States farming businesses are seeking, and no doubt the United States Government are putting great pressure on the United Kingdom Government to deliver it. However active our National Farmers’ Union has been in mobilising extensive public support behind high food and animal welfare standards, I assure noble Lords that its efforts pale beside the relentless drive of the United States farming lobby, which has the weight and power of Congress behind it, plus close ties to a number of British parliamentarians, who are also putting pressure on the Government.
I can think of no greater impetus towards independence in Scotland than the Scottish Government being unable to ban cheap, often unhygienically produced, food imports. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, reminded us in Committee, the availability of cheap imported food across England, Wales and Scotland would cause huge problems for farmers in Northern Ireland and, as the United Kingdom is its biggest single market, would render them uncompetitive. Farmers in many parts of Wales and Scotland would also face similar challenges.
In Committee, we were assured by the Minister that existing laws on the statute book would safeguard our food and animal welfare standards, and that therefore amendments in this group were unnecessary. As we have also heard, clear promises were made in the Conservative election manifesto. I say to the Minister that laws can easily be changed by this Government, with their great majority in the House of Commons. Who, after the events of the last two weeks, can have any faith in Conservative manifesto pledges? I believe in the sincerity of the Minister but I do not believe in the sincerity of the Government.
Tens of millions of people in this country—over 80% of the population, according to recent polls—are looking to Parliament to uphold our existing high food standards and to keep out of the United Kingdom produce from the United States, in particular, which has been unhygienically treated and cheaply produced as a result of animal welfare standards which would not be allowed in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, so graphically told us in Committee. Unless and until our high standards are written into legislation, a large majority of people across the country will not believe that the Government will deliver on their promises. If and when they do not, that will be a much greater threat to British farmers, British consumers and our agricultural exports than the common agricultural policy ever was.
Given the way in which government policy has evolved since Committee, I believe that we now need a more comprehensive amendment than Amendment 90, and I am very happy to support Amendment 89ZA and Amendment 93, if moved, in this group in the hope that they command the support of as many noble Lords as possible. I believe that we need to send a clear message to the Commons and the Government, setting out what the people of this country very reasonably are asking of us.
Finally, I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that a Government who are willing to break international law can surely find a way to interpret WTO regulations flexibly. Many other countries find ways of reconciling WTO rules with maintaining high standards of food and animal welfare and hygiene, and I have no doubt whatever that the United Kingdom can do exactly the same if it wishes.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I commend Amendments 89ZA and 93, and Amendment 90, to which I have added my name.
There should be no compromises on food standards. Agriculture and trade are clearly inextricably linked. From the Northern Ireland perspective, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would agree, we want to protect our existing food standards. We do not want the import of inferior-quality food, because we regard the food that our farmers produce to be of such high quality that it should be safeguarded and protected. Therefore, there must be regulations that do not lower animal health, hygiene or welfare standards for agricultural products below established UK or EU standards.
Animal health and food standards are vital, particularly at this time of a pandemic. I go back to the report of our Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Select Committee produced earlier this year, Hungry for Change, for which we received evidence from Henry Dimbleby, who is leading the national food strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, he was quite clear that the consumer and the farmer want good-quality food. They do not want any compromise on standards, and they definitely do not want food imports of a lower quality. They do not want chlorinated chicken or hormone-infused beef. Such standards have to be protected, and that has to be written on the face of the Bill.
I remind noble Lords of the debates on the Agriculture Bill in the other place several months ago, particularly on the amendments concerning food standards. Farmers, farmers’ unions, environmentalists, the Food Foundation and the National Trust all believe that we and the Government need to hold food imports to the same standards that currently exist in this country. There must be no lowering or undermining of those standards in order to bring in cheaper food of an inferior quality. I would like to hear the Minister say today that he accepts these amendments—their words, their tenor and the sentiment behind them—and that they should be written on the face of the Bill. I support them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the first three amendments, Amendments 89ZA, 90 and 93, and Amendments 103 and 105. I shall ignore Amendments 94, 95 and 96 because they are inconsequential spoilers, and I think it is wrong to put them in this group.
At the very start of the Bill, I said to the Minister that the Government had managed to unite the National Farmers Union, Greenpeace, consumer organisations, supermarkets, the Green Party and the great British public, and that this probably meant the Government had got it wrong. This is possibly the most important amendment that we will discuss in the whole Bill because it is one that almost everyone in Britain cares about. One of the things that we get knocked around the head with, particularly when we talk about policing and counterterrorism, is Ministers telling us that this is “the will of the people”. Well, Amendment 89ZA embodies the will of the people to maintain our food standards.
When we talk of American standards, we all know that that is an oxymoron; they do not exist. Its farming practices and animal welfare standards are vile, and we should be ashamed that there is any idea that it might be able to import into our country. This is essential protection for British farming. There is no doubt that the amendment has to pass today. I hope that some of the MPs in the Commons will have a bit of backbone and support it as well.
As the internal market Bill, which has not yet arrived in your Lordships’ House, proves, we cannot trust the Government—on anything, really. They are desperate to make trade deals and are happy to bend and break laws and agreements. The Minister has been very helpful and given noble Lords repeated assurances but, as the resignation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, proves, no matter how honourable and trusted Ministers are in this House, Boris Johnson’s Government cannot be trusted and will ignore or overrule Lords Ministers. The only solution to this problem is clear wording in the Bill to protect British farming standards against this desperate Government. Again, I say that this is truly the will of the people.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare again my interests as stated in the register. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for adding her name to mine on these amendments. I look forward to hearing her contribution and those of other noble Lords.
Like many noble Lords, I attended most of the seven days of Committee on the Bill. Although there were amendments that I thought would improve it, I felt that a large majority were either redundant or harmful. Many were proposed by noble Lords who have consistently opposed Brexit and, even if they now accept the decision of the people and the result of the general election of December 2019, still seek to align our rules and regulations as closely as they can with those of the EU, even in cases where the EU is a global outlier.
There is much that I like about Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as I said in debate in Committee. It is right that any new trade agreements that we enter into should confirm the UK’s acceptance of its rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization’s sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. As we start to participate in the WTO as a new independent member, it is important that we do all that we can to strengthen its relevance and remit, which have been weakened by the ambiguous attitude towards it held by the present American Administration. The US has refused to nominate new members to the appellate body, which is hampering the hearing of appeals. The UK should become a leading advocate internationally for rules-based free and fair trade because that is the way to build a more prosperous world. Indeed, given the US disregard for the WTO, the UK as the fifth-largest economy will be able to take the lead in reviving support for international trade liberalisation, which has lacked a champion.
The problem with the noble Lord’s amendment is that there is a conflict between proposed new subsection (2)(a), which would require trade agreements to conform to the SPS agreement, and proposed new subsection (2)(b), which would require all food imports to conform to domestic standards, which means EU standards. EU standards conflict in some instances with the SPS agreement, which encourages Governments to adopt national SPS measures consistent with international standards, guidelines and recommendations. Most of the WTO’s member Governments participate in the development of these standards in three other international bodies: the Codex Alimentarius Commission, established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN and the World Health Organization; the World Organisation for Animal Health, or OIE; and the International Plant Protection Convention.
The SPS agreement aims to ensure that measures are applied for no other purpose than that of ensuring food safety and animal and plant health. Such measures should be based as far as possible on the analysis and assessment of objective and accurate scientific data. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, the SPS agreement permits countries to adopt standards higher than international standards if they think it appropriate but only if there is scientific justification, not if such standards are misused for protectionist purposes and not if they result in unnecessary barriers to international trade.
The EU is a global outlier in international food standards because it gives too much importance to the precautionary principle, which obstructs innovation and interferes with free and fair trade, thus driving prices higher than they need be. A case in point is the EU ban on hormone-treated beef, which the WTO ruled is not based on sound science and denies EU consumers access to US beef at affordable prices. I know there are noble Lords who might welcome the price of beef rising to such levels where economics will force people to change from a mixed diet, including a significant amount of meat, to a largely or all-vegetarian diet, but, besides interfering with the freedom of the consumer to choose what diet he or she wishes to eat at affordable prices, such restrictions will interfere with and limit the ability of British beef farmers to sell to new markets overseas at competitive prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said he thought I was seeking to prevent the Secretary of State setting UK standards and requiring him to conform exactly to international standards. I do not think I am trying to do that in any way. I believe that we import many products manufactured in countries with different labour laws, environmental standards and animal welfare rules. Of course we must set domestic standards at the high levels that we rightly wish to uphold.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said that chlorinated chicken was “bad food”. For a start, most chicken grown and reared in the United States is treated not with chlorine but with peracetic acid. Secondly, I do not believe that it is bad food; certainly, I have never found it bad when I have eaten rather good roast chicken on visits to the US. If people do not want to buy American food because they think American farmers’ standards are too low, they do not need to. However, we are not quite as good as we always think we are; there have been many articles in the newspapers recently about poor poultry food standards, pollution of rivers and so forth. Neither are the Americans anything like as bad as many noble Lords make them out to be; indeed, there is not much difference between American rules on poultry stocking densities and UK rules on the same thing.
If the UK adopts food standards compliant with the SPS agreement, no one will be forced to eat food produced in countries of whose animal welfare standards they disapprove. However, I have not heard any noble Lords on the other side of this argument call for clear food labelling to identify products such as chicken reared in Poland, Brazil or Thailand, where average stocking densities are higher than those permitted in the US or the EU. I understand that Poland does not yet comply with EU rules. It is also interesting that there is no criticism of animals killed in conformity with halal rules to conform with sharia law.
In common with most noble Lords, I applaud the fact that the UK has made a big contribution to the raising of animal welfare standards in the world and I sincerely hope that we will continue to do so. Our efforts in this regard should be made within the OIE, and not by trying to interfere with free markets in food by applying restrictions on imports which will drive up the cost of food, especially at a time when so many people’s livelihoods have been affected by Covid-19.
For decades, the time-honoured way of dealing with SPS and technical barriers to trade rules has been to rely on equivalence of standards and technical regulation. This is because an equivalence or recognition approach ensures that everyone’s overall approach to risk is the same—not that every country’s rules are identical. We are more likely to get better rules, and more pro-competitive ones, if we adopt an equivalence or recognition approach with regulatory competition. Pure harmonisation is unlikely to lead to the best result and tends to increase the regulatory burden on our farmers, making them globally uncompetitive. Moreover, this is the approach of most WTO members. The EU is seen as the outlier. Our trading partners are asking the question: will we truly be “global Britain” or will we be more protectionist than the French? In the former case, we will be welcomed into the community of trading nations; in the latter, we will not.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard; indeed, it was a pleasure to add my name to his Amendments 94, 95 and 96. This is the first time that I have spoken during the passage of this Bill. Until my husband retired, I sometimes described myself as a farmer’s wife—but I claim no special expertise in agriculture and, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no interests to declare. I do, however, have an interest in trade matters; that is what has enticed me into the Report stage of the Bill and these amendments.
I start from the position that the main amendments in this group are not necessary. The Government’s policy is clear: they are committed to high food and welfare standards. They have demonstrated that commitment in all the trade treaties negotiated to date—both the continuity ones and the latest jewel in our trade crown, the free trade agreement with Japan. I am sure that we will go over that ground all over again when we commence our scrutiny of the Trade Bill.
We do not need to write into law what the Government are committed to. I fully accept that Governments do that from time to time, but it is generally done when they have weak parliamentary majorities and need to appease their opponents. Writing into law what the Government will do anyway can be a cheap way out of a confrontation. Noble Lords will know that that is the background to the wording of the Trade Bill that was brought forward by the previous Administration. We are not in that position today. The Government have a solid majority in the other place, which has already rejected similar amendments—and if your Lordships’ House passes these amendments, I would expect a similar response.
There is another reason why these amendments are unnecessary. International treaties have to be ratified using the CRaG procedure, which gives the other place the power to refuse ratification. Amendment 93 contains the equivalent of the CRaG procedure, but I fail to see why we need, effectively, to duplicate CRaG solely for the purpose of agricultural and food imports. If the other place does not like what the Government have negotiated in a trade treaty in relation to food and agriculture, it is open to the other place to refuse to ratify the agreement. Parliament already has the power that it needs by virtue of CRaG. Nevertheless, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s amendments because, as he has explained, without his amendments, Amendment 93 would not make sense.
Now that we have left the EU, the starting point for our international trade will be the World Trade Organization. I welcome Clauses 40 to 42, which give the Government the necessary powers in the area of agriculture. This means that we should be ensuring that our standards comply with WTO standards; at the moment they do not, because our standards are derived from the EU and are in some respects non-compliant.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, which stands in my name; in so doing, I again draw attention to my registered interests. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will hardly be surprised if I do not follow their line on this matter. I support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, with which my amendment partly aligns itself.
It is not disputed that imported agricultural goods can have both negative and positive impacts for those in the UK agricultural sector. On the one hand, we may rely on certain imports to maintain and improve the viability of our farms, as well as to protect the health and welfare of our animals. On the other hand, goods which may very well meet the required WTO sanitary and phytosanitary standards can nevertheless represent a major threat to the viability of our food producers if they are able to undercut them by incurring lower costs in meeting regulatory standards. Such unfair competition can undermine our domestic food production. It can consequently threaten food security if our domestic capacity is indeed eroded. This is particularly relevant as a consideration at a time when the global pandemic has laid bare our susceptibility to the disruption which extreme events can cause to global food chains.
Just weeks before the coronavirus lockdown, it was revealed that the UK Treasury had been advised that farmers were not needed in the UK, and that we could follow the example of Singapore, which, the Treasury was told,
“is rich without having its own agricultural sector”.
Yet, by the beginning of April, Singapore had announced drastic new measures to accelerate local food production, including desperate plans to grow food on the rooftops of public housing estates, as disruption of global food supply chains started to hit home.
The sort of lower standards that could undermine domestic producers would be ones which allow more lax regulations relating to plant health, animal health and welfare, and environmental standards. Equally important in this regard are employment and human rights issues. We should not abandon our principles in relation to food production, environmental standards, and the welfare of animals or people around the world. This amendment proposes that we ensure that tariff levels and tariff rate quotas are maintained at levels which minimise the risk of there being a back door to our market for those without a trade deal with the UK.
Were a UK Government to lower the UK global tariff significantly, and thereby encourage lower-standard goods to enter our market, they would be threatening the well-being of both consumers and the UK agricultural sector, undermining our rural communities and jeopardising our food security. There is more than one way to tackle this threat; we shall come later to other possible avenues—I am thinking particularly of Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relates to trade deals. In the meantime, we should take the opportunity afforded by this bank of amendments to write into the Bill the safeguards which consumers need and which may be of existential importance to the future of agriculture in these islands.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a number of comments when speaking to his amendments, including how he felt that a number of noble Lords have tabled amendments because they wish to stay wedded to EU rules, even though the UK has, theoretically, left the European Union. That may or may not be true, but people in my part of the country do not have the luxury of that choice, because we are left in the EU. That is the brutal reality of the situation.
On 2 October last year, the Government produced a document called Explanatory Note: UK Proposals for an Amended Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. That amended protocol used phrases such as “Border Inspection Post”. It said that products coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would be “exported” to Northern Ireland, and that people moving goods would have to notify the authorities of that fact. It talked about a “zone of regulatory compliance”, which is the 27 EU countries plus Northern Ireland. This is the first time that I can recall a Conservative and Unionist Government proposing a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another. To their eternal shame, the Democratic Unionist Party in the House of Commons endorsed that proposal, describing it as
“a serious and sensible way forward”.
It is neither serious nor sensible.
There are consequences to that. We export to Great Britain the vast majority of our agricultural products, whether milk or meat. Therefore, if the standards with which we are forced to comply begin to differ over time from standards here, our products would become uncompetitive. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, have attempted to communicate to us, by various means, that they wish to retain standards, but they may or may not be in their posts in the future, and we have to look long term. The worry I have, and which I know is shared by many others, is that once you have done a trade deal, if you try to then apply tariffs or to change your own standards and regulatory environment, it will start to break the deal you have done. You can then be brought to whatever adjudication processes are agreed, and no one knows what the outcome will be.
I do not believe we want a situation in which we put up food prices—that is not what I want to see. Other amendments that I put down earlier on Report sought to ensure that people at least had a choice and that the primary producer would, for once, get a decent slice of the cake, so that it was not always left to the supermarkets and processors. However, I fear that if things change over time, and because our farmers will be regulated by whatever the EU decides—which includes state aid, because we will be bound by state aid rules as soon as the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented—in such circumstances, we could very quickly become uncompetitive.
If noble Lords think it is only in my imagination that there is a border in the Irish Sea, I say this. In the first week of July, the Government allocated £25 million to help business deal with the consequences of the additional administrative work that would be required to handle a new situation. By 29 August, that had risen to £355 million. If there is no border, why are we spending £355 million, over two years, to help businesses with the transition?
For us, any diminution of standards in Great Britain is a matter of life and death for our farmers—it is as simple as that. It is a competitive issue. If EU and UK standards remain as they are, or if there is equivalence, that is fine. I hope that that is what happens, because you cannot freeze things in aspic for ever. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard points out, we are not perfect: we make mistakes and there have been examples of these. Nevertheless, if the balance changes over time, our farmers will effectively be hammered. In my belief, it is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom to see one of her four nations left in that situation. Although some of us warned of this in advance, the whole protocol has come about in a way that has the potential to break up the United Kingdom and cause huge damage. It is a very bad idea, but that is a debate for another day.
In Committee, I referred to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent. It is not entirely clear to me how an equivalence in standards would be enforced against the background of international trade deals being done and the fact that we are left in the European Union while the rest of the United Kingdom is not. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Given all these things, and that Northern Ireland’s biggest food customer is Great Britain, we are very concerned. Our farmers are very concerned that they would be left in a hopelessly uncompetitive position.
There are a number of amendments in this group and there will be a sequence of votes. I reserve the right to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House in circumstances where some of the other amendments are perhaps unsuccessful. I have put that on the record and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I am glad that he gave his speech because, with all the either deliberate or inadvertent diversions of the debate on the internal market Bill, the reality remains that only three of our four nations will be covered by elements of this Bill. For the first time in our nation’s history, one of our home nations will be governed by a set of regulations and laws for which there will be no elected parliamentarians with the authority to make any decisions or to hold to account those making the regulations.
The well-argued speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Henig, reminded the House that we have debated this before. I rehearsed an argument in Committee about the merits of why it was necessary. I do not want to repeat that, but I want to highlight elements and remind the House of the debate we have already had and the cross-party consensus that was secured. There is merit in doing so. If the Government had had their way and the Trade Bill 2017-19 had passed, none of these amendments, or this debate, would be necessary, because that Bill had been amended. I do not recall the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, arguing strongly against a government amendment that was in that Bill. I may have forgotten, but I do not recall her making that case.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and to be reminded of our debates on the Trade Bill—it seem so many aeons ago—and the amendment which, as I recall, was not adopted in the other place in its revised form.
I have been reflecting for some time on how, if I was still a Minister, I would deal with the three related and important amendments before us: Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on which I will focus; and two amendments in a later group, Amendment 97 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who for many years has been a towering figure in farming. They raise some similar issues, and they all have lots of supporters and some detractors, led by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
I am a supporter of the World Trade Organization and its predecessor, GATT. Having been trained as an economist, I know that trade brings great benefits in terms of world prosperity, as is convincingly explained by the theory of comparative advantage. This is particularly important when we face recession and the shock of the Covid pandemic affecting, I am afraid to say, every corner of the globe. That is a very different background from that when we were debating the Trade Bill. We must support the WTO and have regard to its rules. The Minister suggested in Committee that provisions of the kind we see in Amendments 93, 97 and 101 might be incompatible with them. We could be ushering in a new argument with the WTO and major problems of compliance, which would be particularly unfortunate given the current problems with the WTO—in particular with the Appellate Body, referenced by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. It is not easy to see a way round this, and there is a severe difficulty in establishing equivalence in order to implement the necessary criteria for maintaining standards, so we must tread a careful path.
Since this Bill was first presented in the other place, the Government have come a long way. They have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, in which Red Tractor is involved—I should again register my interest as its chair. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was kind enough to mention it and the importance of high food standards in the UK, which I endorse. The comments of Henry Dimbleby, quoted by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, were also interesting and relevant.
The new trade commission, which we will discuss later, is a victory for the farming unions who fought for it, as they felt that their interests were being ignored. It has wider value as an excellent sounding board for Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for International Trade, and her teams on a swathe of current trade negotiations. The widely welcomed Japan agreement is the first green shoot and, to pick up the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has not bent the rules.
In closing, I shall revert to my question about what a Minister might do. I would try to address the substantive issues, without coming down in favour of one approach. I would build on what has already been done, by, for example, agreeing to extend the life of the Trade and Agriculture Commission for a few months and by planning some wider consultation to bring in the voice of those who might feel excluded from the commission once it has published first its interim and then its final reports. Among other things, I would do more to reassure, by repeating the promise the Government have made that they are not planning to change food regulations to let in chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef. Such undertakings could not be reversed in the other place, and I rather agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that we do not always need to make amendments to have concerns addressed. I also agree with her that science and innovation matter a great deal.
The UK benefits greatly from the international order and enduring economic ties, especially free trade. This is the future and we must tread with care. Before there is a vote on any of these important amendments, the Minister may want to comment on whether they could fall foul of WTO rules.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard and agree with what he, and my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have said. However, listening to this debate, I have occasionally felt the House has been transported back to the debates on the corn laws in the early 19th century. Then, as now, landowners, supported by their friends—romantic believers in an unchanging rural England—argued that we should prevent the import of cheap food, protect the labouring classes from their predilection for it and require them to eat more expensive food and that if we did not, it would mean our farming industry would be destroyed, our fields would remain untilled and our agricultural capacity would be permanently diminished. We know, of course, that the protectionists lost and the free traders won. Most people look back and think that was one of the great victories for progressive legislation in this country which raised the well-being of the labouring classes, although it may have diminished rents of landowners for a time. I hope we will bear that in mind as we consider these amendments.
It is generally accepted that WTO rules permit us to ban foods based on their risks to human health. So it should, as long as those rules are scientifically based. It is also generally accepted that WTO rules do not, unless in rare and exceptional circumstances, permit bans on imports based on the production processes used if they do not have an impact on human health. That is why the EU ban on US poultry washed in peracetic acid or very dilute solution of chlorine is based on the supposed risk to human health, not on the welfare of chickens. We all know the scientific basis for the allegation of risk to human life is tenuous, otherwise the population of North America would not be so large. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others, want a standard based on the welfare of poultry, not on the welfare of humans. However, to do so would be contrary to WTO rules. Paradoxically, they are asking us to set aside an international treaty, albeit for specific and limited purposes. There are reasons the WTO has these rules. First, when countries prohibit the import of goods, particularly food, based on the alleged inferiority of standards in other countries, it is usually done for protectionist reasons and not for the reasons they give. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to enforce rules about standards applied in another country, unless you adopt quasi-colonial controls reaching out into those countries from more developed countries, which many countries in the world do not want to see themselves subjected to. The WTO recommends where possible we adopt international standards, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, such as Codex Alimentarius and so on, as long as they are based on sound science.
I hope that the House will think twice before going back more than a century to introduce protectionism, flout international law and do something where the sole purpose is to raise the cost of food.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I should begin by declaring the interests I declared earlier during the passage of the Bill. I shall speak to Amendments 89ZA and 93 and to the gist of the arguments behind others. It is important that UK agriculture and the UK public should be confident about the marketplace for food in this country.
UK farming—using those words in a wide sense—is operating in a global marketplace and needs to be sure that it will be playing on a level playing field not only because of the food implications of its activities, but because of the implications the revenues from food production will have on the delivery of all other public goods, using that word in a general sense, that we have been discussing during the currency of the Bill. That differentiates the debates that we are having from the arguments that pertained at the time of the repeal of the corn laws. I am afraid that as an individual I think that it is invariably the case that reassurances from any Government today are no guarantor of government actions tomorrow. Under our constitutional system, the best guarantor of such things is a specific provision in an Act of Parliament.
From the food perspective, for the entire population the problem is summarised as what has come to be known as the chlorinated chicken issue. It seems to me that chlorinated chicken, which may or may not be disagreeable, is not the issue. The problem is that the place where that chicken originates is so rife with damaging disease and practices that it is necessary to apply those techniques to it. That being the case, it is surely better not to have food from those sorts of places in the first instance. Finally, environment, welfare and other land use factors are important for the globe as well as for the United Kingdom. Encouraging and promoting bad practices elsewhere is something we should be ashamed of doing and we should not do it.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who brings ministerial and practical experience as a farmer to this debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 89ZA and Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Krebs, my noble friend Lady Bakewell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
I spoke on food standards and other matters in my contributions at Second Reading and in Committee. I remind the House that I farmed on my own account for more than 20 years and had the honour of representing the rural constituency of Torridge and West Devon from 1997 until I retired from the other place in 2005. I still live in the constituency. In 2001, the constituency was probably the most adversely affected in the country by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Since 1976, and particularly since 2001, I have observed first-hand the agricultural industry making substantial investments in time and money in improving animal welfare, protecting and enhancing our environment and complying with rightly stringent provisions relating to food safety and hygiene, traceability and plant health. British agriculture is justifiably proud of the high standards it has attained in responding to all these challenges and of its ability to provide to good and safe food for the British people. I am aware that some Ministers have declared that the Government will not enter into agreements with countries that dilute these high standards. At Second Reading I stressed that Ministers come, and Minsters go. I gave other compelling reasons why the British public and the agricultural industry should have assurance of statutory protection in relation to high standards for all the matters covered in Amendment 93.
This was all before the Government took the momentous and deplorable decision to provide, or endeavour to provide, powers to renege on the international treaty with the EU, which they had negotiated and agreed less than one year ago. This has shocked most of us in our House and also the British public. In the past, this country has rightly been respected for our commitment to the rule of law and our compliance with international law.
This proposed legislation—which enables this country to resile from its treaty commitments—is outrageous and undermines the good faith of this Government, whose cavalier approach to the rule of law is the most compelling reason why this new amendment on food standards should be enacted. The British people and the agricultural industry must all have all the protections we can provide. Thank you.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 103, and I simply ask the Government to honour their election manifesto commitment that
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Amendment 93 would ensure, on a statutory basis, that import standards cannot be lowered to below equivalent domestic standards as part of free trade agreements. Such agreements cannot be a race to the bottom; environmental, animal welfare and food standards need to be protected and improved over time. Imported products produced to lower standards than required from UK farmers would undermine our farming industry and create unfair competition. Import standards have not been addressed in the Trade Bill, so they need to be addressed here. I do not accept the belief of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Government can be trusted to stand by their word; we need statutory assurance.
For example, a few weeks ago, I was one of a number of Peers briefed by the Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who said that such standards issues would be best dealt with by differential tariffing against substandard imports. I remain unconvinced that tariffs alone would effectively prevent the import of substandard products. However, I am very interested in Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would ensure that tariffing, combined with other measures, also worked in the interests of maintaining standards. It would be a useful, but not sufficient, condition.
Others have talked about labelling, but, with regard to standards, this will not work. If you are poor and hungry, cheaper food will be attractive irrespective of standards. To enshrine the Conservative manifesto commitment in primary legislation is, in my belief, entirely in line with World Trade Organization rules, which allow countries to put in place non-discriminatory measures designed to protect human, plant or animal health or a limited natural resource. The Government need to use fine UK ingenuity and leadership to design and justify sensible import restrictions, which could be made compatible with WTO rules; that is what Governments and trade negotiations are for.
We know that the US negotiating mandate for a free trade deal sees harmonising standards as a central objective, and this means harmonising them to their standards. We know that statutory instruments introduced using European Union (Withdrawal) Act powers have already deleted from the statute book considerable amendments governing, for example, antibiotic levels in foodstuffs. That is just one example of what can happen if we do not keep our eye on government commitments.
Once the transition is over, the Food Standards Agency adjudicates on the risks of foods and treatments, but its chief executive officer has recently said that Ministers have the final say on whether food produced to lower standards can make it onto UK supermarket shelves. I think that UK supermarkets will have a view on that. Maintaining high standards is supported by farmers, by 75% of the public and by major retailers across the board, and they are responding to the concerns of their customers. They will not stock produce that they believe their customers do not want to see on their shelves.
I know that the Government will want to maintain wiggle room in the trade negotiations, but, to be frank, the more they wiggle, the more they will reap the wrath of the people they are here to serve, who are committed to high food, environmental, employment and human health standards.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, within this grouping, I support my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s helpful amendments. First, on United Kingdom and EU standards, he corrects a misapprehension or, maybe, he forestalls it before it has time within the Bill to solidify as a regular misunderstanding. For, as he points out, there is no difference between domestic standards and European Union ones. They are identical.
Secondly, what is also insufficiently known—and as my noble friend also usefully observes—in certain respects, the UK and EU are not compliant with World Trade Organization rules. I am in favour of Amendment 103 of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which urges that United Kingdom global tariff rates should take into account the well-being of the agricultural sector and that imported goods must be equivalent to, or exceed, domestic standards.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will make a brief contribution. In fact, I was going to opt out altogether because I did not want to repeat anything that anyone else had said. Certainly, I support the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked at the beginning of the debate and, frankly, I expect the Minister to answer all six of them. They were quite specific.
It is worth pointing out that, unlike Ministers, the Food Standards Agency is actually required to do things by law. I will read out Section 1(2) of the Food Standards Act 1999:
“The main objective of the Agency in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.”
By law, Ministers do not have that obligation. They think they can hump it away in the Commons, but I have news for them: if they want to take on the role of Food Safety Minister, they ought to have a bit of a history lesson about salmonella, orange juice, BSE and CJD. Then they will realise why the FSA was put there in the first place. It was not a happy experience for previous Ministers without its support.
I will make one further point relating to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has said about chlorinated chicken. I do not think I have got her wrong, but I do not want to mislead. She said that she could eat it safely because the issue was about animal welfare, not the safety of the food, and she is right. However, published research from the University of Southampton has shown that chlorine washing of food does not take away all the nasty bits. They started off, I think, by washing vegetables, but they have since looked at meat—I am not sure whether this was chicken or other meat. However, the fact is that this is not a solution to the problem.
The other thing that is also worth point out is that, in the United States of America, over 400 people a year die from salmonella. In this country, no one has died—I think there was one case in the last eight years—compared to 400-plus in the United States. I am not saying that it is because they ate chlorinated chicken, but I am saying that it is pretty unsafe in respect of deaths from salmonella in the United States, which seeks to push its food onto us without necessarily labelling it. Therefore, there are some issues here that must be carefully looked at.
As for the Minister, I have not been in my office or at my desk for well over 12 months, but I have a little file up there with at least a dozen quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who is a reputable Minister, on food standards over the last three or four years. He has more of a claim than any other Minister to reassure the public and Parliament.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at this late stage and given all the powerful speeches we have heard, I shall be very brief in my remarks, which are aimed at supporting Amendments 89ZA and 93. I also express my support for the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Grantchester in his opening contribution.
There have been many excellent speeches, but I was particularly struck by my noble friend Lady Henig’s telling analysis of the problems that we are in danger of creating in the UK’s internal market and the consequent political tensions between different parts of the UK if we do not stand firm on our commitment to high food and environmental standards. This danger of disunity has already begun with the Prime Minister’s dramatic U-turn, which resulted in a trade border being established in the Irish Sea.
In addition to listening to us—I know the Minister is doing so but I hope the Government will too—I hope that the Government will respond favourably to the impressive and wide-ranging coalition of farmers, environmentalists, consumer groups and those who have signed petitions, emailed and written to us as parliamentarians on this issue.
Amendments 89ZA and 93 are an effective improvement to the amendment which, sadly, failed in the House of Commons. They are not identical to the earlier amendment and I hope that, as a result, the Government will accept them and translate their stated commitments into proper guarantees in the Bill.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that we need this provision in the Bill. She is absolutely right. The reason why the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Grantchester and others is so important is that we have put considerable effort and commitment into build up the standards of food, animal welfare and husbandry and, as we were debating earlier, pesticides. It would be quite wrong, inadvertently or deliberately—and we cannot discount deliberately, given the way things are—to allow the commitment with which we have made all these improvements to be rapidly undermined. We need these amendments very seriously.
As a former Defence Minister—albeit long ago—I often remarked that we like to use the phrase, “The primary responsibility of government and Parliament is the safety of the British people”. Here, we are talking about a very real dimension of the safety of the British people, not to mention animal welfare; it is as strong and important as that. I therefore hope that there will be widespread support in the House for these vital amendments.
We get lots of interesting and well researched briefs from all sorts of people who are concerned about the Bill. The strength of feeling about our responsibility at this juncture to put our commitment firmly in place and reinforce it has never been more convincing. I am very glad, therefore, to be able to support the amendments.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I speak in support of these amendments, in particular, the requirement to meet environmental and other standards which are at least equivalent to, or exceed, those which apply to UK-produced agricultural goods.
Noble Lords may recall that I spoke in Committee in support of protecting and enhancing our countryside and of concerns about the pollution being suffered in the catchments of chalk streams such as the Rivers Alre, Itchen and Test, all in Hampshire. In particular, I referenced the activities of the agricultural processing and distribution group Bakkavor in its industrial plant close by the River Alre in Alresford. The abstraction and discharge of water from the Alre has been linked to the rise in pollutants exceeding the levels permitted by the Environment Agency.
I can now advise your Lordships that Bakkavor has since announced its decision to close Alresford Salads in October. The resultant job losses at a difficult time are, of course, a worry, but clearly, Bakkavor and similar businesses can operate their food processing plants from proper industrial sites anywhere, near or far. They do not have to pick sites that threaten the ecology and environment of unique chalk streams with their pollutants, or damage the infrastructure of historic towns with their 40-tonne lorries trundling through medieval streets. As the chairman of the Alresford Society has pointed out in a letter to the Hampshire Chronicle of 3 September:
“The focus now needs to be on what might happen to the Alresford site in the future. The market for ready to eat food, including washed and bagged salad, is large and growing”.
Could the current large water extraction licence held by Bakkavor be transferred to another operator? Could the discharge consent licence be renegotiated in the face of damning scientific evidence? If diversion into a mains sewage system was considered feasible and affordable, the town would still continue to suffer the daily stream of 40-tonne lorries through streets that were built to cater for stagecoaches.
I believe there is an opportunity within this Bill to avoid this. Alresford is just one example. It is on the boundary of the South Downs National Park. The local plan states:
“It will only permit development …. which has an operational need for a countryside location … or proposals for the re-use of existing rural buildings, which should not cause harm to the character and landscape of the area, or neighbouring uses, or create inappropriate noise, or light, or traffic generation.”
Nevertheless, the Minister will be aware that in 2018, the Government announced changes to the town and country planning order 2015, allowing adaptation of agricultural buildings, which could undermine restrictions set out in local plans. Could the Minister assure me that, in such sensitive rural areas, local planning restrictions will remain paramount?
This Bill can provide the means to protect towns like Alresford and surrounding villages, within the chalk stream catchment, from environmental vandalism for generations to come, if only by employing and reinforcing the regulations that are now in place. Unchecked industrial development should never take precedence over the preservation of our rural environment, particularly the unique chalk stream catchments of rural Hampshire. To that effect, I am very pleased to place on record that, following its inaugural meeting, I have become a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Chalk Streams. Its intent, inter alia, is to monitor and hold to account, those agencies whose actions could damage chalk stream ecology and environment.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on moving Amendments 89ZA and 93 and on his excellent introduction. These amendments would ensure that agricultural products could be imported into the country only if they met our high domestic standards for food safety, hygiene and traceability and the protection of the environment and plant health. They are not only important in terms of maintaining and improving environmental public health and food standards and addressing the wider ecological crisis, but they will also protect our farmers and environmental standards, which are vital for all our futures on this planet.
I have listened carefully to the many excellent contributions to this debate and have been convinced more than ever by the arguments in favour of Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 103. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and have sympathy with her Amendment 90. We must ensure that we have fair competition and a level playing field for our farmers. If we allow lower-quality imported foods to undercut our higher-standard national farming methods, we jeopardise not only UK health standards but national food security. We must not undermine our own interests or those of our farmers. The well-being of the UK agriculture sector and small farms is vital for our national self-sufficiency in food. Especially as an island nation, we need a thriving domestic agricultural sector, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made these points powerfully. We are talking about food, not widgets or cheap clothing imports or grains of corn. This is not the same as the Corn Laws debate. Importing cheap corn is a far cry from importing lower-standard meat or processed foods or risking the protection of the planet.
Following last year’s Trade Bill discussions, I regret that the Government no longer intend to align our standards—or seemingly no longer intend to do so—with existing levels across the EU. This would obviously have been safer both for the problem of the Northern Ireland border and for public health. My noble friend assured us in Committee that existing laws will protect our standards and that these amendments were not necessary. I do not doubt the intent and integrity of my noble friend, who is one of our most dedicated and knowledgeable Ministers, but I share the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords and am finding it pretty impossible to support the Government’s position. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to some of the questions from others—the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rooker, in particular —including on whether our definition of food standards includes food production and whether Defra still rules out importing lower-standard foods, because it sounds from this debate as if that might not be the case.
Moreover, will my noble friend please explain how aligning with WTO food standards, rather than the higher standards that we have today, would impact the Northern Ireland protocol and the border flows for farmers on the island of Ireland, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Empey? Without reassurances on these questions, I wonder if the Minister, if he is unable to accept these amendments, could undertake to come back at Third Reading with the department’s own wording for a commitment to this effect on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have added my name to Amendments 89ZA and 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for setting out so clearly the rationale behind these amendments.
Farmers, retailers, environmentalists and the general public are all concerned about the importation of food produced to lower standards than we currently enjoy, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already indicated. The National Farmers’ Union’s standards petition has reached over 1 million signatories, and recent polling shows that more than 75% of the public think importing lower-standard food from the USA would be unacceptable. Major retailers have promised not to stock chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef in response to the safety and animal welfare concerns of both their customers and farmers.
The Conservative manifesto promised—and I am sorry that we keep banging on about this—not to compromise high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards in all their trade negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, rightly said that confidence in this document has waned. While the UK should not rest on its laurels, our current standards are some of the highest in the world and are higher than those of most of the UK’s prospective trading partners. These standards relate to animal welfare, pesticide usage, chemical safety and food hygiene. I appreciate that this presents the Government with something of a dilemma when they are attempting to enter trade negotiations with countries outside of the EU, but a manifesto promise is still a promise.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to sovereignty and taking back control. Safeguards have been promised in the Trade Bill, but so far they have been conspicuous by their absence. The Agriculture Bill is the correct place for these safeguards to be contained. Neil Parish, from the other place, has said:
“We are being led down the garden path”.—[Official Report, Commons,13/5/20; col. 300.]
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already referred to this. Mr Parish has a long and proud history of representing rural and agricultural communities. He is right: now is the time to stand up and be counted.
Once the transition period has ended, the Food Standards Agency will assess the risks posed by foods and treatments before they are permitted or banned. If a change in practice is approved, the relevant SI will be amended. However, the FSA chief executive recently clarified that Ministers have the final say over whether food of lower standards will make it on to the UK’s supermarket shelves. This is not what the public want. They want to be absolutely sure of the quality of the food being imported and do not want it left to the whim of a Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated that the powers of the FSA were unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has also referred to FSA advice.
Now, as never before, the public are aware that animals are responsible for spreading diseases to humans. Those animals needing to be given excessive doses of antibiotics are more likely to be living in squalid conditions in which super-resistant pathogens can spread to humans. Imported animal products should not need to be treated with antibiotics, as the animals should have been living in humane, clean conditions.
I listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I fear I could find no correlation between the Corn Laws, which I studied during my education, and the amendment we are debating.
My noble friend Lord Purvis eloquently listed the previous debate on the Trade Bill from 2019. Like others, I am at a loss to understand the Government’s change of heart and approach. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Burnett on so excellently setting out the arguments.
I share completely the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I know from recent and previous visits to our family in the USA that it has a very different attitude on animal welfare. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right that salmonella is rife. The current American Administration have no regard for the WTO. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, accurately set out the difficulties of encouraging the USA to take our farming produce.
I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, especially his comments on the precautionary principle. Rather than lowering UK standards to the level of the WTO, it is better for the UK to take a lead and assist in raising WTO standards, while maintaining our own high standards. It is not true that those who sign this amendment are trying to increase the price of beef and meat out of the reach of consumers. We are trying to create a better-balanced, healthy diet.
Lastly, I return to the words of the honourable Neil Parish. Now is the time to make this change. Eighteen speakers this afternoon have spoken in favour of these amendments, with only five against. I urge your Lordships to make this change and place this amendment in the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we have certainly had a fulsome debate on this matter. Whether it was in favour of or against these amendments, the opinion of this House was very clear. As I said, the Government’s manifesto commitment—I am pleased to add further to the record of my remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—is that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high standards of environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe. I would reply to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Rooker, by saying that none of the 20 continuity trade agreements signed to date would undermine domestic standards. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment not to compromise on our high standards in trade agreements. I am fully aware that until all the trade agreements have been signed and settled, some of your Lordships simply will not believe that this is the case. I look forward to those noble Lords who are determined that this is not the case at least having the courtesy to say, “Actually, our fears have been allayed”. I set that as a challenge.
I confirm once again that the Government are well aware of the vital importance of maintaining—indeed, enhancing—the UK’s farming reputation, as it serves as an excellent platform to increase demand for UK produce and consequently enhance export opportunities for our agri-food businesses.
On my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s Amendment 90, the Government are dedicated to improving animal welfare standards. For instance, we have committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in monitoring high standards and high welfare across the UK market; we will consult on that at the end of the transition period. The animal welfare labelling consultation’s objective is to seek stakeholder views on different possible policy outcomes for improving consumer transparency in relation to the animal welfare standards of produce for sale. This could apply to domestically produced products and those imported from third countries, as well as animal welfare standards on farms, in transport and at slaughter. The Government will consider what possible labelling reforms might be pursued in the light of responses to the consultation, which at this stage they do not want to pre-empt. Changes to how products are labelled will not mean changes to our existing standards for how products must be produced. I also say to my noble friend that marketing standards in England are already very high, as they are consumer and retailer led and often go over and above the current EU standards. We will not use Clause 35 to lower standards for products either produced in England or imported, only to make or amend domestic marketing standards.
On Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 105, as your Lordships know, the Government made an unequivocal commitment in our manifesto not to compromise on our high standards in our trade negotiations. Of course, I understand concerns in this area; they have been aired this afternoon. I have already said that noble Lords’ immediate concerns can be allayed by the example of the 20 continuity agreements. I wish to highlight the risks of duplication and complication in what the amendments present, compared with our existing protections. I will tell your Lordships of the robust processes, bodies and systems in place to protect our standards.
The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retains in law our standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety at the end of the transition period. This provides a firm basis for maintaining the same high level of protection for both domestic and imported products. Any changes to legislation would require these to be brought to Parliament and the usual parliamentary scrutiny processes to apply. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to beef and poultry. Notably, this includes the EU law banning the import and production of hormone-treated beef, which has been transposed into domestic law and will continue to operate in the UK after the end of the transition period, applying in all parts of the UK.
I also reiterate that existing food safety provisions relating to pathogen reduction treatments permitted on poultry carcasses will continue to operate independently in UK law after the transition period. It remains the case in the UK that no substances other than potable water are approved to wash poultry carcasses.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions. First, the Government’s manifesto commitment is clear and covers environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. This includes standards applied to the assessment of novel foods, which the FSA will continue to lead. Also, a range of physical and documentary checks will ensure that biosecurity is maintained, alongside protecting animals and plants in public health. Also, the border operating model—I am happy to send it to the noble Lord—has been published with much more detail.
Given not only their experience but the considerable work they undertook, the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rooker, will know that the independent work of our food regulators—the Food Standards Agency, or FSA, and Food Standards Scotland, or FSS—and rigorous processes will continue to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. This will include imports under new free trade agreements. In addition, the FSA recently announced that its chief executive will develop a regular written assessment, which will provide the FSA’s view on the state of food standards and consumer interests. Regulated food products, such as food and feed additives, enzymes, flavourings or GM food and feed, undergo the FSA’s risk assessment process before being placed on the UK market. This process is rigorous, independent of government and based on robust scientific evidence.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the process will bring a substantial weight of expertise to bear. The FSA has doubled the number of risk assessors since 2017. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It also takes wider consumer interests into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security, drawing on appropriate expertise and stakeholders to do so. Moreover, the expertise of other government departments such as Defra, the devolved Administrations and agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency may be brought to bear in the risk analysis process and when considering risk management options.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am encouraged by all the support I have received, and many cogent points have been made. I know that several noble Lords, especially from the Cross Benches, have been unable to speak today, which has been very unfortunate at a very crucial stage of the Bill. Their contributions would have been very worth while.
I thank the Minister for his response. I know from previous meetings that this is a subject that he feels very passionate about, and he has done his best to present the line endorsed by the Secretary of State. I did my best to count, but I am not sure that I heard full cogent answers to the six tests asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his remarks.
Remarkably, this is about the Government being unwilling to enact all of their own manifesto promises, due to their ideological obsession with realigning with a trade deal with the US—a deal which increasingly looks to be in peril, given the recent uproar over the internal markets Bill, which threatens to break international law, and the consequential interventions from members of the US Senate and Congress.
The Minister mentioned that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act carries into UK law the existing safeguards from being a member state. However, these provisions can be quickly and dramatically weakened through secondary legislation, which carries far less public and parliamentary scrutiny and amendment, and I would suggest that the noble Lord and his department are aware of this. If the Government think they can break international law, they will not worry about breaking electoral promises.
The most secure way to protect standards is to put them directly into the Bill. Without that, negotiations are left wide open to pressure for Ministers to agree that a trade deal is good for Britain on balance, while sacrificing what so many hold so dear: how we produce our food. UK standards will not be protected through higher tariffs, to price out lower-standard imports. This will merely invite tit-for-tat tariff wars, damaging UK exports. Stability for food producers and a supply chain are best achieved by certainty, by writing our standards into law.
The National Farmers’ Union has now come out and called for support for this amendment. When it comes to trade standards and taking legislative action to prevent the importing of inferior food products that undermine our own standards, there has been an unprecedented alliance between farmers, consumer groups, charities such as the RSPCA and the National Trust, supermarkets, the Green Alliance UK, and even a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Defra.
I have listened very carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I do not agree that there is a contradiction between subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) in the amendment. After all, imports should also comply with WTO and SPS agreements. I maintain that our amendment does not fall foul of WTO regulations, and that it stands up.
I wish to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, when she says that the amendment is unnecessary as it is in the Government’s intention: what of other Governments? Her disagreement falls.
The EU directorates on behalf of member states already come to audit and do many of the actions that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, claims are not undertaken internationally—those of inspecting food and denying access to the EU market, which those that do not comply have to abide by. We must be assured this continues. I also thank my noble friend Lord Rooker, with his ministerial experience, for his explanations of the vital work of the Food Standards Agency.
This is a case of delivering on promises made to the British people and preserving the high standards that make British agriculture what it is: that is, among the best in the world. I call on all Members of your Lordships’ House to support the amendments, starting with Amendment 89ZA. I now wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 89A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions for elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 35: Marketing standards
Amendment 89A
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for the administration of marketing standards of imported wine products, including the digitisation of the information required on Vi-1 forms. ( ) The Secretary of State must—(a) review the need for detailed import certification for wine and consult industry and enforcement bodies as part of this review;(b) should the review under paragraph (a) conclude that specific information about wine imports is needed, not re-introduce any requirement until the information can be exchanged electronically and securely;(c) consult with international partners including the World Wine Trade Group and the International Organisation of Vine and Wine to develop a technologically driven electronic system;(d) determine how any secure electronic system can be included in a wider secure supply chain information system as part of the Government's plans for the 2025 Border Strategy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for all regulatory information relating to imported wine products to be permitted in electronic form.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of amendments. I will speak mainly to my Amendment 89A, but I also give a positive nod towards the other two amendments in this group, not least the one in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which is clear in its intent and its need. I thank all the organisations and individuals who have helped me with this amendment in Committee and on Report, particularly the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the WSTA.
What would Amendment 89A do? Effectively, it suggests to the Government that, come 1 January next year, it would not be a good idea to voluntarily introduce paper wine import forms. There is no obligation, regulation, nor even any international law that says we need to introduce this documentation. It is, by design, paper-based protectionism. That is not me maligning it; it is protectionist paper by design. The amendment suggests that a more fruitful route for the Government would be to pause and not introduce this paper-based documentation for the importation of wine. Although the amendment is specific to wine importation, in principle it could apply to the import-export business of a range of other sectors of our economy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes. He has made an eloquent case against the bureaucracy of new paper-based controls on wine. This is very timely, because Covid makes digital much more appropriate in many areas, and I look forward to hearing what can be done.
I rise to move Amendment 91 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, unfortunately, cannot be here today—and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. As we are talking about marketing standards, I again declare an interest as the chair of Red Tractor. This is much the biggest of a number of important agriculture assurance schemes; ours covers £14 billion-worth of food and drink, and benefits from regular inspections by ACAS-accredited bodies to enhance food safety, traceability, animal welfare and environmental protection. As I said in Committee, we carry out regular inspections for the FSA—which has been much mentioned today—and the Environment Agency and help to promote export success based on certified standards. We support government endeavour and try to be the flagship of British food and farming at a very difficult time.
Amendment 91 is important because it strikes at the heart of the debate about the use or abuse of powers repatriated from Brussels and Luxembourg now that we have left the EU. We have seen a taster of what can go wrong in the overuse of such delegated powers in domestic legislation in the Public Health Act 1984, which we will be debating prior to the renewal of Covid restrictions next Monday, ahead of the Commons vote on Wednesday.
I should start, however, by congratulating my noble friend the Minister. This is an extremely difficult Bill to steer through our House. Agriculture, food and the environment are issues that excite us all disproportionately. I have therefore appreciated his readiness to listen and to try to get impact assessments back on the right path—which was the subject of an earlier amendment. I know that he also believes in consultation with the farming industry and other stakeholders in developing ELMS and, no doubt, in setting marketing standards, which are the subject of this clause.
My noble friend helpfully confirmed in Committee that there will be consultation on regulations made under this section—although, rather curiously, this is because marketing standards are covered by EU food law, which is being carried over into UK law. The duty to consult is contained in Article 9 of Regulation 178/2002, as the Minister told the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, in Committee. However, the provision is rather too limited for my taste. It says:
“There shall be open and transparent public consultation”—
which is good—
“directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law, except where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
The bad news here is that consultation with the public can be direct, which is fine, or through representative bodies, which is not, as they have their own interests and axes to grind. Worse is the very wide exemption
“where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
This is exactly the sort of provision used in the Covid crisis, in some cases—such as on mask wearing—needlessly, as the debate about that went on for weeks and would have accommodated as well as benefited from public consultation.
In order to withdraw our amendment, my first request is for an assurance that there will be a bias in favour of consultation—open consultation, including engagement with parliamentarians, not just representative bodies, who can take too narrow a view. During foot and mouth, which was not even fatal, I remember that the NFU—which has actually done a lot today—and the food chain of which I was then part dominated consultation. However, they failed to help the Government to spot the disastrous impact on the tourist industry of closing down the countryside.
Our amendment is narrow. That is my fault, but, since I have given notice of this, perhaps the Minister could also comment on the availability and progress of consultation and/or the applicability of Article 9 to Clauses 36 to 39 and Clauses 40 to 42, which I think might fall outside food law.
The second area where I would like an assurance is, I acknowledge, more difficult. The regulation the Government are relying on—as the House of Lords Library has kindly explained to me—is contained in retained direct principal EU legislation. Such a measure can theoretically be amended not only by an Act of Parliament or by a devolved legislature, but by certain delegated powers. So in principle the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018—or, I suspect, the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—can be used to modify the provisions of the regulation on which we are relying for consultation. The former has already been used on minor BSE, plant-protection and horse-testing regulations. I should add that all of this has emerged since my very helpful meeting with the two Ministers. Will there be public consultation if these two Acts are used to amend the powers deriving from Regulation 178/2002, on which so much weight is being put? If not, the Government should come forward with a short reassuring clause on consultation, as I have been arguing throughout the Bill.
We must ensure that the Executive are not given powers that are too sweeping, or we will get into an unholy mess. To save the agriculture and food area from this fate, I make a plea to the Minister for the reassurance I have asked for and, if need be, for the Government to rethink on consultation and to follow through soon on the very welcome promise last week on impact assessments.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I will speak to Amendment 91. My interests are as listed in the register. In addition, I repeat what I stated when speaking to Amendment 18: I chaired the Better Regulation Executive from 2010 to 2015. It is pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her in-depth knowledge and experience of the subject matter, and I am delighted to add my name to this amendment. Like the noble Baroness, I appreciated the commitment from the Minister that impact assessments will be undertaken as the Bill progresses.
I fully endorse the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, in particular the risks we face through time pressures to get legislation through Parliament before the end of this year. We have a very crowded programme. There is a sense of significant pressure on Defra in having not only the Agriculture Bill but the Fisheries Bill and the Environment Bill to progress through the legislative process, against the huge diversion and all-consuming concern of the Covid crisis. It would be a huge mistake if, against this pressure, Defra were to short -circuit the consultation process just to get things done. I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is under on this issue. However, the consultation process is in place for a purpose and it is essential that we adopt best practice. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 92A, which is in my name and enjoys the welcome support of my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
I am sure that there is common ground across the House that geographical indication schemes, GIs, bring marketing benefits to a considerable number of products. This amendment is very similar to the one that I supported in Committee, tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler. Although the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, gave some helpful responses on 23 July, I still seek important clarifications.
Protected geographical indication schemes provide rules designed to protect the geographical names of food, drink and agricultural products. As I noted in Committee, the National Farmers Union of Scotland describes the Scottish ones, not least the Scotch beef PGI and Scotch lamb PGI, as being of strategic importance to Scottish agriculture’s output. In speaking to his amendment, my noble friend Lord Tyler referred to the importance of protected GI schemes for Cornish pasties, clotted cream, Melton Mowbray pies and Stilton cheese. I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships again of their importance to Scotch whisky.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am pleased to be here in person to speak in this debate. I hope that today’s announcement in relation to the pandemic does not reduce the number of Members who decide to come here in person. Due to a technical error, I had to ask my Question this afternoon virtually from across the road. The Opposition Leader said that I sounded a bit fuzzy. I do not like to sound fuzzy; I like to be as clear as possible, and I want to speak clearly in support of Amendment 92A, to which I have added my name, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said. It would protect the UK’s speciality food and drink products currently covered very effectively under the European Union’s geographical indication scheme.
As Members know, I take every opportunity to speak up for Scotland and, in this case, its treasured food and drink products. They are really important to our economy, our community and our cultural heritage. The EU uses these geographical indications to protect and promote speciality food and drink products across the UK, including Scotland. Scotland’s prizewinning products include, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, most famously our whisky and salmon, but also the celebrated Ayrshire early potatoes and traditional Ayrshire Dunlop cheese; coming from my old constituency, I have a particular interest in that.
Under the current scheme, the quality of local ingredients, the method by which they are produced and the traditions adopted in certain geographical areas associated with these products are heavily promoted. That has helped the products to achieve competitive advantage and a very strong positive brand identity both domestically and globally.
The UK Government have said that they will put a UK GI scheme in place after we leave the EU but, as always with this current Government, there are still a number of questions and uncertainties over how the scheme will look and whether it will be able to guarantee protections for Scottish and UK producers alike. Indeed, it is not beyond this Government, while negotiating a deal with other countries, to forget about this issue. The EU protected GIs and firmly believed in them; it was strongly supportive of them. However, I understand that the United States is less in favour of such schemes and their protection, which means there is a substantial danger that the Government might be persuaded—or indeed forced—to water down GIs to negotiate a trade deal with the US.
Food and drink producers across the UK face huge challenges anyway because of the pandemic. Their difficulties are enormous, so they require greater certainty. I ask the Minister, and here I reinforce the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace: how will the Government ensure that? I hope the Minister, for whom we have the greatest respect, will give us an indication of how the Government will ensure that these products will remain properly protected when we take over the responsibility on 1 January 2021.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He is not responding so we will move to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who, as ever, spoke so entertainingly.
I shall speak to Amendment 92A, and I echo many of the sentiments expressed by its authors. This is a very vexed area. I recall only too well that when I was MP for what was then the Vale of York, Shepherds Purse Cheeses produced feta cheese that was clearly produced not in “feta land”—Greece—but in North Yorkshire. I think the case went as far as the European Court of Justice, and the upshot was that the company had no protection and had to abide by the EU rules. Imaginatively, the company changed the name of the cheese to Yorkshire fettle, which is a best seller and has won a number of awards. I am delighted that it continues to have success.
The serious point here is that, according to figures from the Food and Drink Federation, the three greatest exports from the UK are Scotch whisky, then Scottish salmon and, lower down the list, chocolates. So this is immensely important to Scotland, but also to North Yorkshire and the whole Yorkshire region. I pay tribute to the marketing facility that was originally Yorkshire Pantry but has been renamed Deliciously Yorkshire. Because of the food cluster in and around North Yorkshire—in fact, in the whole Yorkshire region—the protected geographical indication scheme is extremely important to them. I hope my noble friend will pull something out of the hat to make sure that if we are to have a UK geographical indication scheme, it will be recognised across the EU and the EEA at the very least.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose expertise in oenology is certainly far more tasteful than mine. I am devoted to the excellent products of the Camel Valley Vineyard in my erstwhile constituency, although when it comes to imports, my family are more broadminded. He has raised an extremely important point that does not just apply to these particular products and operators. What he described as “paper-based protectionism” has huge implications for a great many exporters and importers, and his point was very well made. I thought that at the end of the Committee debate on 23 July, the Minister had given him an undertaking that he would look at the issue of the VI-1 forms, and I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has not received a satisfactory solution to the problems he has identified.
I also find absolutely formidable the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. The regulations will be of huge practical significance to many British companies operating in this field, so an extensive and effective consultation is surely essential. I recall from my time on the DPRR Committee how often we were faced by the Government saying that something was urgent and expediency would be used as a short cut to prevent effective scrutiny. In this case, it could be used to prevent effective consultation. Again, the noble Baroness made an extremely important point that goes far beyond the powers being taken in this Bill.
However, my primary concern is to speak in support of proposed new clause proposed in Amendment 92A in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. This is the fourth time that I have supported attempts to obtain a clear, unequivocal and totally realistic ministerial statement from the Government on the future protection of the 88 UK specialist food and drink products which are currently covered by the excellent EU Geographical Indications Scheme. This new clause seeks to secure equal protection for the traditional speciality food and drink products for which the UK is famous and which bring such economic benefits to particular areas.
Members in every part of the House have previously expressed admiration for the scheme, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, did just now, especially since it was extended as the result of an initiative by British Ministers during the coalition Government. A succession of Ministers has kept assuring us that the protection of these products can continue within the UK, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has emphasised, that is the not the principal issue in question at the moment.
During the Committee stage of the Trade Bill on 23 January last year, I asked the then Minister for trade for an explicit assurance that GI protection would continue on exactly the same terms—that is, outside the UK. I was told that an amendment was unnecessary because it would be secured. But in view of the vagueness of that promise, on 6 March 2019 I tabled an amendment to that Bill on Report and withdrew it only when a slightly firmer assurance was given. However, as my noble and learned friend has reminded your Lordships, during the Committee stage of this Bill and again today, there has been a series of apparently well-informed newspaper reports indicating an admission that the current failing negotiations are putting that future protection at risk. It appears that there is no guarantee that, in the words of our new clause, all of these products
“currently protected under the EU Geographical Indications Scheme are covered by exact equivalent international protection after 31 December 2020.”
Given the No. 10 briefing that a no-deal outcome is both likely and perfectly acceptable, and given, too, the current question marks that hover over the whole withdrawal agreement signed by the Prime Minister on 19 October 2019, what confidence can we have in Article 54.2, which purports to give some legitimacy to the continued cover for GI products? I am, of course, especially exercised by the threat to genuine Cornish pasties, clotted cream and sparkling wine, but my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are rightly exercised by the effect on world-famous Scottish products. To add insult to injury, we are told that a Trump trade deal, which may now be elusive as a result of the threat to the Northern Ireland protocol, would require abandoning origin labelling, as referred to in a previous debate. From the point of view of consumers, that will make matters worse. This echoes the previous debate on standards that meet UK public expectations. We want to take back control.
At the conclusion of the debate in Committee on 23 July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, could only assure us that
“the Government are determined to work in support of all the 88 geographical indications from the UK, which will remain protected after the end of the transition period”.—[Official Report, 23/7/20; col. 2465.]
What does the determination amount to if, as seems so very likely now, the UK Brexit negotiators fail to get a deal in the precious few weeks now remaining? What if the EU, understandably bruised by the bad faith of the retreat from the withdrawal agreement, simply removes the relevant entries after we have taken our leave and have no further say in the matter? This was implied as being quite possible in the Government’s response to the GI consultation paper, to which my noble and learned friend referred. Where does this leave these British products, hitherto protected by the EU scheme, when it comes to current and future EU trade treaties with third countries?
In Committee, the Minister claimed he had been very clear. Sadly, and very unusually for him, there is no such clarity. Much as we would all prefer a firm assurance, it would be better to hear an honest assessment from the noble Baroness this evening that the Government cannot now be absolutely sure that long-term, precise and exact equivalence is guaranteed. Then, all concerned would know exactly where they stand.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords who have returned with these amendments from the debates in Committee on provisions in Part 5, Clauses 35 to 37, on marketing standards. Regulations around marketing, labelling, traceability, country of origin and GI schemes remain critical to providing accurate and appropriate information to the consumer.
The complexities behind the list of EU Commission delegated directives cover various product sectors, including wine, and are the subject of Amendment 89A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. These regulations under the withdrawal Act also include country of origin, protection of designations of origin and geographical indicators, and traditional terms are important to facilitate frictionless trade with the EU and enhance the future of UK exports, which have been established so successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, return with their Amendment 92A on the importance of geographical indicator schemes not only for fantastic products for Cornwall but for many artisan food products, such as Lincolnshire Poacher cheese and Melton Mowbray pies. The House also discussed these schemes on the Trade Bill proceedings in the last Session, as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The adding of value to local specialisms is a crucial element in encouraging skill, pride and prestige in rural entrepreneurship. We agree that it is of considerable importance that a successful trade deal is concluded with the EU. It is also great that my noble friend Lord Foulkes is able to be with us in the Chamber; his words were gin-clear on the merits of Scottish produce.
These regulations will be subject to the affirmative approval procedure, which should not only contain an impact assessment but be subject to consultation. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for highlighting the importance of a widespread and exhaustive consultation on their Amendment 91. Alteration of existing requirements should proceed only on the basis of proper and widespread consultation with producers, the supply chain and the consumer to ensure an appropriate balance.
I am sure that the Government appreciate the merit behind these amendments and that the Minister will provide additional reassurances to satisfy the House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I will start with Amendment 89A. Marketing standards establish detailed rules on the quality of agricultural products and the provision of product information to consumers. They are intended to make sure that products offered to consumers are accurately and consistently labelled and of acceptable quality, and that unsatisfactory products are kept off the market. They are overall in the interests of producers, traders and consumers. They encourage high-quality production, improve profitability and transparency and protect consumer interests. At present, certain agricultural products marketed in the EU must conform to marketing standards and associated labelling requirements set out in EU law. The marketing standards apply at all marketing stages, including import and export.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked why we could not do nothing. We all despise unnecessary bureaucracy, but VI-1 forms are needed until the end of the transition period under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. We will be looking at these rules again at the end of the transition period. I reassure him on digitalisation: the administration of maintaining marketing standards of imported wine products, including the digitalisation of VI-1 forms, is included in the current scope of Clause 35(1). These provisions do not therefore need to be explicitly added into the clause. The scope to replace VI-1 forms with an electronic document is also covered under retained EU law, specifically Article 27 of retained EU delegated regulation 2018/273. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is already covered. The Government cannot digitalise unilaterally, but it is already an option under retained EU law, and we are looking at introducing it. It is likely that South Africa will be the first partner we seek to do this with at the end of the transition period.
I turn to Amendment 91. Clause 35 will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations and amend existing EU and domestic legislation concerning marketing standards to ensure that they are tailored to meet the needs of domestic farmers, retailers and consumers. A full review of the marketing standards is going to be undertaken. As part of this, detailed policy thinking, stakeholder engagement and consultations will need to take place. Any changes would be made with the purpose of tailoring the marketing standards to fit the needs of the domestic farming sector.
I can confirm unequivocally that any use of the powers in Clause 35 would be covered by an existing duty to consult. As for the question about the bias towards consultation, I say that the Government’s preference is to consult the public on these matters. We would never rely solely on the views of representative bodies, and we will not bias our consultations towards one group.
Marketing standards are covered by food law, and a duty to consult is contained in Article 9 of regulation 178/2002. This regulation states that
“There shall be open and transparent public consultation, directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law, except where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
This regulation will become retained EU law via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
One of the principles of good law making is not to repeat law which already exists, in order to protect the coherence of the statute book. We are aware that there is an exemption for urgent situations in Article 9 of Regulation 178/2002 and I place on record that there are no plans to make any urgent amendments using the Clause 35 power. Urgent changes would usually be made under food law instead. There are specific regulations which cover food information and safety and there is no future intention to broaden the powers in Clause 35 to cover any such areas.
It is standard procedure that a summary of the responses to a consultation be published on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of it closing. Further to this, any statutory instruments made using the power will also be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum and a proportionate analysis or full regulatory impact assessment where the net direct cost to business is above £5 million. The Explanatory Memorandum will include details on the outcome of any consultations which have taken place. A more detailed analysis of the consultation outcome will also be published on the departmental website at the time the statutory instrument is laid before Parliament. The impact assessment will provide the rationale for government intervention, details of all the options considered and the expected cost and benefits, particularly for businesses. Clause 35 is subject to the affirmative procedure. Any statutory instruments which are introduced must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament. This procedure ensures that Parliament can properly scrutinise the statutory instrument before it comes into force.
Turning to Amendment 92A, I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that we fully expect all 88 geographical indications from the UK to remain protected in the EU after 31 December this year. I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the relevance of these to the Scottish economy, particularly whisky and smoked salmon. I am not sure I got the reference to potatoes. Geographical indications do not have to originate from EU member states to be protected under the EU’s geographical indications scheme. The EU currently protects products from many non-EU countries such as Japan and China.
If the EU wanted to remove UK geographical indications from its register, it would have to go through the burdensome process of changing its rules. Of course, the Government cannot guarantee what the EU will do, but it has given no indication whatever that it is considering such changes. It would be, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, “capricious” of the EU to try to do so.
If the UK does not secure a new trade agreement with the EU, we will, under the withdrawal agreement, continue to protect EU GIs in the UK. There would therefore be no incentive for the EU not to reciprocate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me to be more specific on that point. I cannot, because we are in the process of negotiating these issues. The UK is definitely not seeking to loosen its GI rules. GIs are very important to the UK and the Government will establish robust GI schemes at the end of the transition period. All UK GIs will continue to be protected in the UK from 1 January 2021. The Government’s objective in trade negotiations with the EU will be to secure the best outcome for UK GIs and, obviously, the UK economy as a whole.
I hope that I have given enough reassurance, and that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these three amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, our own little Ayrshire parliamentary potato. I thank the Minister for her thorough and thoughtful response to all the amendments. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords are extremely grateful for the time and thought she put into the detail of her response. There are a number of issues that I would like to pursue between now and Third Reading but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 92B. 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 the debate.
Clause 40: Power to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture: general
Amendment 92B
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations as specified.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 92B, for which I have the welcome support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—it is nice to get the support of a Scots advocate for this amendment—I will speak briefly about a matter I raised in Committee relating to Clause 40. It concerns powers for the Secretary of State
“to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture”.
As presently drafted, there is no requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult any parties prior to making regulations under this clause. The purpose of this amendment is to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders if making regulations under this clause.
As I have highlighted on other aspects of the Bill and previously, it is important to provide an additional layer of scrutiny of the Government’s actions by stakeholders who have a direct interest and a relevant responsibility. This is particularly pertinent, with respect, given the Government’s lack of formal consultation during the ongoing trade negotiations and their seemingly taking action behind closed doors. Incidentally, I wonder what has happened to the joint ministerial committees, which were set up to ensure consultation between the UK Government and the devolved Parliaments and Governments.
The requirement I am seeking, to consult on intended regulations under this clause, will help to ensure openness and transparency and also ensure that any draft regulations are exposed to critical comment from stakeholders. That might actually improve the instrument. Perhaps the Government do not fully appreciate that such scrutiny is not always critical; it can be helpful.
Looking more widely at the WTO provision in the Bill, I understand that the Scottish Government intend to recommend that the Scottish Parliament withhold consent to amended provisions. While I understand that Scottish government officials are content with the amendment to Clause 42, it is almost irrelevant, as the Scottish Parliament’s consent to the whole of Part 6 of the Bill is required. With no more amendments to that part of the Bill, consent is likely to be withheld. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the Government will now consult the Scottish Government to try to ensure that this consent is not withheld. It would be much better to go forward with agreement than with conflict. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I point out for the benefit of the House that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. There is concern in some quarters, not least the Law Society of Scotland —as alluded to by the noble Lord—that there may be insufficient consultation of all the parties in this regard. I welcome the opportunity for my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this short debate, to address the role of the devolved Assemblies and, in this case, the Scottish Parliament in negotiating future trade deals. We will discuss Amendment 97 and others in that group, but the Bill is silent on the role of the devolved Assemblies and the extent to which they will be consulted and involved in drafting and negotiating these trade agreements. It behoves the Government to set out their plans at this stage.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, it seems to me that this interesting amendment bridges very nicely the gap between the last group and the next, because there was some discussion in the last group about the importance of consultation—albeit in a different context—and the next group is about the role of the devolved assemblies and parliaments. This one sits rather squarely in between.
From the point of view of our Benches, there are a couple of points we wish to make. First of all, it is increasingly becoming the case that delegated legislation is rushed and is not always particularly well drafted. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and it is a weekly task to go through imperfectly drafted regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it is much better to pick these things up earlier rather than later. Therefore, proper consultation and some almost pre-legislative scrutiny by the devolved assemblies could only be helpful.
We need to be clear about how serious it would be if the Government were using these powers. Many of the things we would all support and like about the WTO provisions do not cover agriculture at all, so with the possibility of high tariffs and the removal of quantitative restrictions, the impact on agriculture could be very serious indeed. Therefore, the involvement of the devolved parliaments and assemblies, both in preparing for it and hopefully mitigating some of this, would be important. I am definitely supportive of the principle behind this amendment and interested to hear what the Minister says.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes for tabling the amendment to probe the process envisaged by the Government when they use the powers under Clause 40, and, in particular, for his suggestion to consult with the Scottish Government and go forward with agreement. Of course, I add that consultation with Wales and Northern Ireland is also necessary.
As we have seen in relation to certain powers within the internal market Bill, the Government seem to exercise, let us say, a degree of discretion when it comes to their understanding of compliance with international law. While the amendment presents a perfectly sensible proposal, there is a serious worry that the Government’s approach to trade matters—and with it the future prosperity of the United Kingdom—is largely driven by ideology rather than evidence from stakeholders. Indeed, in the Commons yesterday, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said she would not back the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which contains the provision, and gave a strong warning that it would
“lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/9/20; col. 668.]
and threaten the union.
I therefore hope that the Minister can give some indicative examples of how the powers may be used, as well as providing an estimate of how frequently the Government expect to make such regulations. Ultimately, while it is not much of a safeguard and may not be a completely acceptable substitute for meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders, the regulations will at least be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, as we said in Committee:
“Part 6 of the Bill allows regulations to be made to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture”,—[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 130.]
particularly those related to domestic support. The regulations will set out procedures and arrangements to ensure that the whole of the UK continues to comply with existing obligations under this international treaty.
Amendment 92B seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations under Clause 40. Relevant stakeholders in this instance are the devolved Administrations, since it is they who will be required to abide by spending limits and work together with the UK Government to classify and notify domestic support at the WTO.
We do not anticipate any direct impact on farmers because the devolved Administrations will retain the freedom to design and implement their own domestic support policies within the overall spending limits. As I outlined in Committee, consultation is already well advanced. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, Defra Ministries work very closely with their DA counterparts through a regular interim ministerial group on agriculture, which I believe is the same body that he referred to earlier. Government officials work closely with all their counterparts from all Administrations to draft the regulations under these powers. I can again report that good progress has been made and that the views of officials from the devolved Administrations have been taken into consideration throughout the whole of the drafting process. In terms of Scottish consent, we have received confirmation that the Scottish Parliament has recommended consent for provisions in the scope of the LCM procedure.
The Government fully recognise the devolved status of agriculture. Indeed, Clause 40(1) is drafted in such a way as to specify that regulations can be made only for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. It is this narrow function of ensuring overall UK compliance with an international treaty that remains reserved for the UK Government and that Part 6 addresses. The UK Government consult the devolved Administrations and all relevant stakeholders appropriately, but it is not efficient or constitutionally proper for the UK Government to be bound to consult on all matters that are reserved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked what functions are envisaged under these powers. In order to ensure that the UK remains in compliance with obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, it will be necessary to collect data on agricultural support schemes from the four nations of the UK in order to classify and report this information at the WTO. Additionally, spending limits will be placed on each country of the UK to ensure that the UK as a whole honours a commitment to limit spending on certain types of trade-distorting support.
Where reserved matters overlap or intercept with devolved areas of competence, the UK Government of course recognise that the devolved Administrations will have an interest. The Government therefore work with those Administrations, as we are currently doing, to accommodate their comments and concerns when we can, to the satisfaction of all those involved. I am pleased that Defra officials have particularly good relations with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
We already have a bilateral agreement in place with the Welsh Government on the making and operation of regulations under Part 6, and we have offered to extend this agreement to the Scottish Government and DAERA ministers in Northern Ireland. Additionally, my honourable friend the farming Minister, Victoria Prentis, placed on record in the other place a commitment to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under these powers.
Lastly, I understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was concerned about how these regulations impacted directly on farmers. These powers allow for a framework of regulations to be made for ensuring UK-wide compliance with existing international obligations. Within this framework and within the boundaries of existing WTO agreements that seek to limit the use of trade-distorting financial support to agriculture, each Administration will still be able to design their own schemes to deliver their policies on supporting farmers and managing the farmed environment.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance and that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a very comprehensive and indeed helpful response. I just want to make two points. First, this is one of many debates that I have been involved in in which Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative Members have all raised issues in relation to the devolved Parliaments, the consultation and the roles and responsibilities. That issue comes up more in the House of Lords than anywhere, and it is not always appreciated in the devolved Administrations.
Secondly, I have sat through only a small number of the debates on the Agriculture Bill, but I would personally like to pay tribute to the Ministers and their staff and to the shadow Ministers and their staff for doing a huge amount of work on this very important issue. I hope that that is recognised not just in the parties and in the House of Lords but well beyond this place. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grantchester
“Requirement for agricultural and food imports to meet domestic standards
(1) Chapters of an international trade agreement that contain provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom may not be ratified unless the conditions in subsections (2) to (5) have been met.(2) The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement confirming that—(a) the agreement contains an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, and(b) any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under the agreement will have been produced or processed according to standards which, on the date of their importation, are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to—(i) animal health and welfare,(ii) protection of the environment,(iii) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(iv) plant health.(3) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has by regulations specified—(a) the process by which the Secretary of State will determine—(i) that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under a trade agreement is produced or processed are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene and traceability, and plant health, and(ii) that the enforcement of standards in relation to any product under subsection (3)(a)(i) is at least as effective as the enforcement of the equivalent domestic standards and regulations in the United Kingdom;(b) the “relevant domestic standards and regulations” for the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (3)(a)(i).(4) The condition in this subsection is that the chapters have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.(5) The condition in this subsection is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the chapters has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in subsection (4). (6) A Minister of the Crown may, where the Minister considers appropriate, make regulations amending any regulations made under subsection (3).(7) Regulations made under subsection (3) or (6) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(8) In this section—“chapters” means any individual section or sections of an international trade agreement;“international trade agreement” means—(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii);“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;“ratified” has the same meaning as in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010;“World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
Viscount Trenchard
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the others in the name of Viscount Trenchard to Lord Grantchester's amendment, recognise that domestic standards are identical to EU standards and in certain respects are not compliant with WTO rules, correct the conflict between subsection (2)(a) and subsection (2)(b) as drafted, and ensure that international trade agreements will be compliant with WTO rules.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, in light of the assurances given by the Minister, I will not move my amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 97. 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.
Amendment 97
“Trade and Agriculture Commission
(1) The Trade and Agriculture Commission must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high as, or higher than, standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for agricultural goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state.(2) “Agricultural goods” under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, standards relating to—(a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(d) plant health.(3) Her Majesty’s Government may not make any international trade agreement that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom unless the Trade and Agriculture Commission has expressed in writing to the Secretary of State that it is satisfied the criteria under subsection (1) have been met in relation to the draft of the agreement.(4) The Trade and Agriculture Commission may submit recommendations to the Secretary of State for how the draft agreement could be revised in order to meet the criteria established under subsection (1).(5) Where the Trade and Agriculture Commission submit recommendations to the Secretary of State under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must—(a) respond in writing within 14 calendar days, and(b) lay the recommendations and response before Parliament.(6) The Trade and Agriculture Commission may appoint staff and advisers.(7) The Trade and Agriculture Commission may authorise staff to do anything required or authorised to be done by the Commission.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this group of amendments and speak to Amendment 97. I thank the co-signatories for their support: the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Henig, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger.
I will speak briefly to other amendments in the group, but I would first like to set out how developments have taken place since we discussed an earlier version, Amendment 270, in Committee. The most significant development is that we now have a Trade and Agriculture Commission and it has met a couple of times.
The second development is the interim report, which has been published by Henry Dimbleby. Spoiler alert: I have carefully read Amendments 98 and 99 in the names of my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lady Noakes, and want to dispense with them before I discuss Amendment 97 in depth. They are interesting: Amendment 98 is self-explanatory. However, along with Amendment 99, while they could be seen as fairly innocent or innocuous, they are not. In many cases they touch a raw nerve because this is a contested area of the World Trade Organization agreement. Amendment 99 refers to being
“consistent with the terms of the World Trade Organization Agreement”.
That poses problems for me. It would be far better if it read “considered to be consistent”. This is an issue on which the WTO rules are silent.
The Government clearly stated their commitment to animal welfare in their 2019 general election manifesto. Therefore, I would be surprised if the Minister supported that amendment. Amendments 97 and 101 are not deemed to be strict alternatives. They have been considered by the clerks in the Public Bill Office not to be inconsistent and not incompatible. It is almost a mirror image of Amendment 101, which I am sure those who have signed that amendment will speak to.
What I am calling for here is that we must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high or higher than those applying to imported agricultural goods. I then go on to set out what “agricultural goods” should cover, and obviously I have referred to
“animal welfare … protection of the environment … food safety, hygiene and traceability, and … plant health.”
That relates to Amendment 90 earlier.
The key paragraph in subsection (3) states that the
“Government may not make any international trade agreement that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom unless the Trade and Agriculture Commission has expressed in writing to the Secretary of State that it is satisfied the criteria under subsection (1) have been met”.
The importance of this is that Parliament will have to decide a number of questions in the context of the Bill. Does Parliament want to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission which winds up its work at the end of December? If so, it would therefore not be permanent and its advice would not be binding, and it would not be a statutory authority, which is currently the case. Or does Parliament believe that there is a need for a permanent statutory body, operating independently of the Department for International Trade, with its own staff, offices and facilities, and whose advice would be binding on the Government, in the sense that they would have to give good reasons to Parliament as to why they did not follow the recommendations?
Subsection (4) of my amendment says that:
“The Trade and Agriculture Commission may submit recommendations to the Secretary of State for how the draft agreement could be revised in order to meet the criteria”
that I set out earlier. In subsection (5) it says that:
“Where the Trade and Agriculture Commission submit recommendations to the Secretary of State under subsection (4)”,
which I just referred to, the Secretary of State will have 14 calendar days to respond and then that response and the recommendations will be laid before Parliament. The key is that those recommendations and the report will be debated in the usual way—it will be for Parliament to decide whether it should be through the Select Committees in each House, most likely the new Select Committee on international treaties.
The reason I put in subsections (6) and (7) is that I would fervently like to see the Trade and Agriculture Commission be independent, have autonomy and operate apart from the Department for International Trade, so that the commission is independently staffed and its press releases are not written by the department, which currently appears to be the case. I have set out that:
“The Trade and Agriculture Commission may appoint staff and advisers … and … may authorise staff to do anything required or authorised to be done by the Commission.”
My understanding is that that is currently not the case.
I have drawn inspiration for this amendment from the Dimbleby report and his recommendations for government. I assume that as the Dimbleby report was requested by the Government, my noble friend the Minister and the Department for International Trade will draw on the report’s recommendations. On page 79, the report helpfully sets out that:
“The Government should give itself a statutory duty to commission an independent report on all proposed trade agreements, assessing their impact on: economic productivity; food safety and public health; the environment and climate change; society and labour; human rights; and animal welfare. This report would be presented alongside a Government response when any final trade treaty is laid before Parliament. Sufficient time must be guaranteed for the discussion of these documents in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and by the relevant select committees.”
It goes on to say that any impact assessment should adopt a “holistic” approach; that it should be “independent”; that the impact assessment should be “performed by experts” and that this function “would be permanent”; and that parliamentary scrutiny would be set out on a “statutory basis”. That is what I have endeavoured to do in Amendment 97—no more, no less.
I am further indebted to other recommendations made in the Dimbleby report. On page 77, it helpfully sets out how trade agreements are scrutinised across the world. We are obviously most familiar with EU trade agreements where,
“The International Trade Committee of the European Parliament reports on the proposed agreement”.
The agreement then has to have the approval of the majority of the members of the European Parliament, and then it passes to the Council of Ministers
“for their agreement by qualified majority (55% majority representing 65% of the EU population).”
I put it to the House that we would not want a situation in which any scrutiny in this place or the other place was less than that which we currently enjoy for negotiating trade agreements through the European Parliament, as has been the case for as long as we have been a part of it. I will not rehearse this in detail, but every other major parliamentary legislator representing countries that we would hope to do trade deals with—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, Japan and Switzerland—all have some form of advanced parliamentary scrutiny, although none goes as far as a veto.
I prefer my Amendment 97 and would like to hear other voices in the debate before I decide whether to test the opinion of the House. It is for the House this evening, and for Parliament as a whole, to take a decision on whether we want to see the Trade and Agriculture Commission continue in its present form beyond the end of this year. I have tabled a similar amendment but calling for a different body—a permanent international trade commission, for the Trade Bill—and we will obviously consider that at a future date.
I am grateful for this opportunity to set out my stall. I hope that my amendment will find favour. With that, I beg to move.
Amendment 98 (to Amendment 97)
Viscount Trenchard
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Viscount Trenchard to Baroness McIntosh’s amendment would ensure that the Trade and Agriculture Commission would establish criteria which would ensure that United Kingdom standards comply with WTO rules.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 98, I will speak to Amendment 99, both of which are amendments to Amendment 97 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for adding her name in support of my amendments.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh seeks to require the Trade and Agriculture Commission to retain UK standards, which means EU standards. She does not refer in her amendment to the importance of conforming to WTO rules or to the benefits of being free to decide our own regulations.
I believe that standards are not two-dimensional, high or low, but that equivalent outcomes for regulations on animal welfare, the environment, and food and plant safety may be achieved through the adoption of a less cumbersome, more proportionate regulatory system.
My noble friend, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, in his Amendment 101, seek to strengthen the powers of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I believe that this is not necessary, for the reasons given by my noble friend the Minister on 28 July, when he said that he is
“committed to ensuring that trade agreements do not compromise our high standards and will continue to take into consideration the views of relevant stakeholders across the food supply chain on the impact of trade deals. A range of established stakeholder groups is already in place to advise the development of government policy on trade.” —[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 197.]
Since then, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has set up 11 new trade advisory groups, including the agri-food trade advisory group. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if your Lordships’ House were to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, it would then be amended to require adherence to WTO rules.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I put my name to Amendment 97 and support other amendments in this group because, while I supported the establishment of the Government’s current Trade and Agriculture Commission, I wanted it to be set up on a more permanent basis, rather than simply operate as a six-month ad hoc body. Again, I am listed twice in this group. I am not sure whether this is good or bad, or what somebody is trying to tell me, but “I shall say this only once”. I will, hopefully, be reasonably brief.
I agree 100% with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who said in Committee that a Trade and Agriculture Commission should be established on a permanent basis, that it should report to Parliament regularly and that
“it needs to have its advice acted upon by the Secretary of State.”—[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 164.]
I very much welcome the considerable detail and structure, set out in Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, regarding how such a commission would operate.
We heard in Committee that similar bodies exist in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and that such an indispensable, independent voice, which mediates between farmers and consumer interests in their Governments, can advise on trade and agricultural matters and, indeed, on trade mandates and treaties. They have been found to be extremely useful. Why not, then, set up such a permanent body in the United Kingdom? I am only guessing, but perhaps this Government want to keep as much as possible of the decision-making in these areas in their own hands and veiled in secrecy. That is why such a committee, reporting to Parliament, needs to be written into the Bill, and I hope many noble Lords will support Amendment 101, if not Amendment 97. The reason why, in some ways, I prefer Amendment 101, now that I have seen it, is that it is a more comprehensive version of Amendment 97.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about food standards in America. It so happens that I have just been reading Bill Bryson’s latest book, on the body, and he has done a lot or research on food standards in America and has gathered a lot of evidence. He describes how food problems and related illnesses in America derive from American food production—he describes it as a hidden epidemic. I have to say to noble Lords that his research into this area seemed, at least to me, to be more comprehensive than that of the noble Viscount. Of course, we may differ on that matter.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will resist putting forward superficial historical arguments to oppose these amendments. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who I regret is not in his place, that one of the central threads of the Corn Law debates was the potential economic gain to be achieved by pursuing free-trade policies at a time when Britain was the workshop of the world and British workers, who were working incredibly long hours for very low wages, needed access to cheap food to keep going. I hope the noble Lord has not given us a vision of the future under this Government.
Perhaps the noble Lord also overlooked the fact that the present Government are actually sacrificing substantial economic benefits by leaving the EU —the destination, of course, I remind noble Lords, of 50% of British exports currently—in their purist pursuit of national sovereignty. This seems to me, as a modern historian, to be very different from the rational economic policies pursued by mid-19th century British Governments. As I might have said to a student in one of my seminars in a former life, “Debating skills, first rate; historical arguments, perhaps rather less impressive”.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I support Amendment 97, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Henig. I concur with the point my noble friend has already made regarding this amendment: we need fair competition and a level playing field. As we know, none of us, particularly farmers and those involved in food production, wants to be undermined by cheap imports of substandard produce and husbandry from other countries.
The announcement of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission under the Department for International Trade was timely during the previous stage of the Bill. The Minister stated that it will
“shape the future of trade and agricultural policy in our current negotiations and in those to come”.—[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 198.]
It will also provide advice to help promote our agenda at the WTO and other international fora, including on international standards for animal welfare and environmental protection, and to advance and protect consumer interests and those of developing countries. I add my voice to the calls for this commission to be permanent and to have a legislative footing, rather than be a six-month flash in the pan. It must be both truly independent and accountable, and its recommendations must have weight and be given true consideration by the relevant Secretaries of State. I was also pleased to see that there is a specific working group looking at standards, including animal welfare standards.
In Committee, I mentioned the concerns surrounding stocking densities of meat products and the amount of antibiotics pumped into them to keep them healthy, not just in the US but in other parts of the world where we know even less about production methods. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 98 and 99, in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I will not spend any time going into the substance of whether the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be extended in time or scope beyond the arrangements that the Government have already made. I support the Government in this and will not support those amendments. The Government have been clear on their policy, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard explained, and I believe that that should be enough for Parliament.
As with the earlier group—when we debated Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—if we have to have something in this Bill, which I hope that we do not, it should be drafted to reflect our post-EU place in the WTO as a full member again. It is those standards that should be driving international trade of all kinds, including agriculture and food products. The WTO is the place to argue for standards rather than using a parochial approach that might well put us at odds with the WTO, as has happened with the EU. For this reason, I will support my noble friend’s Amendments 98 and 99 if he chooses to press them.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 101 is in my name; it is not dissimilar to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. My interests are as recorded in the register. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for supporting this amendment. I also thank the Minister for his open door, his willingness to make time available and his helpfulness throughout the passage of this Bill. His graciousness, tolerance and patience are very much appreciated.
I have been reflecting on what UK agricultural history will record in the chapter titled, “Membership of the European Union”. This has effectively now ended after more than 40 years. It just happens to span most of my farming career. One constant concern was what we termed “the level playing field”, which always proved to be rather elusive. We believed, perhaps mistakenly, that other member states knew how to game the system and we were committed to the rules of cricket. We are now entering the next important chapter of agricultural history and we will be trading on the global playing field. The purpose of this amendment is to try to avoid being bowled a googly from an experienced spin bowler to an unsuspecting batsman on a poor wicket.
I compliment the Government for establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It was a very welcome decision and I look forward to the report it has been commissioned to deliver by the end of the year. While we are debating this Bill, the commission are researching the fine print of WTO rules. I absolutely agree that those rules should be what determine our trade policy. They are researching what is possible and what is not and what good trade deals might look like. By the time they complete their investigations and research, we will have established a wealth of knowledge on the subject. My challenge is, why, having established that resource, would one send them all home for Christmas, never to be seen again? The logic of retaining that valuable knowledge—that talent—to scrutinise future trade deals to make sure that they comply with the standards and terms in their initial report is obvious. I am disappointed that the Government have resisted the pressure to give the commission an ongoing role.
This amendment has the wholehearted support not only of the farming unions of the United Kingdom and of the CLA, but of animal welfare groups, the environmental bodies and, very importantly, the British public. Rarely in my limited experience has a single amendment had such widespread support. Many of the comments made in the debate on the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 89ZA, led by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, apply to this amendment.
Let me counter the accusation that this is a protection measure, that this is an amendment that will create a barrier to trade. This is absolutely not the case. We have no choice but to negotiate trade deals. I too am delighted that the Secretary of State for International Trade, Liz Truss, has a deal with Japan over the line. She, together with the Defra Secretary, has already established the Trade and Agriculture Commission to provide guidance on the standards and principles that should apply to imported food. This amendment is to ensure that these are applied and adhered to when the deals are agreed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much support the amendment, the purposes of which have been so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle; I was pleased to add my name to it. The noble Lord clearly sets out the progress that has been made, and the need to ensure that that is sustained and not undermined.
In Committee, I subscribed to and supported a similar amendment in the noble Lord’s name. On that occasion, I quoted from a letter which the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Mr Andrew McCornick, had sent to MPs during the passage of this Bill in another place. It was admittedly before the Government announced their Trade and Agriculture Commission; nevertheless, I believe that the sentiments expressed are still relevant and worth repeating.
Mr McCornick wrote
“it is vital that future trade deals do not curtail our ability to grow our reputation as a nation of provenance and quality by undercutting domestic production with imported produce, with which we cannot compete on price and production method.”
This amendment is drafted in similar terms to the one tabled in Committee, but there is a crucial difference. We have heeded the concerns expressed during the debate in Committee about the short life of the Trade and Agriculture Commission which was proposed then. So this amendment proposes a continuing existence for the commission, after producing its important primary report, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State to promote, maintain and safeguard current standards of food production through international trade policy, including standards relating to food safety, the environment and animal welfare. This continuing role may be achieved by the Secretary of State prescribing further functions for the Trade and Agriculture Commission after its initial report is published, and in any event, because the TAC will have a continuing responsibility to report on any trade agreement negotiated by the Government, to consider its impact on the trade of agri-food products and to assess its impact on the ability of the Secretary of State to promote, maintain and safeguard standards of agri-food production, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare.
The amendment would give the commission an explicit additional duty to advise Parliament on all trade deals and how they would impact on food and farming standards. That is one of the reasons the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland has indicated that it would encourage support for the amendment.
I shall conclude by giving two compelling reasons why this amendment should commend itself to Parliament, and an equally good reason why it should appeal to the Government. While providing for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to make recommendations, the amendment gives a key role to Parliament to consider recommendations as well as to determine Motions on the Government’s response to them—so Parliament would have a direct role.
Secondly, the provisions in relation to the new trade treaties supplement the rather limited role given to Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in relation to the ratification of treaties. Both bring back more control to Parliament. As for the Government, the amendment would help them to secure their pledge set out on page 57 of their 2019 manifesto:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
It seems to me that this is a win-win situation all round.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in supporting this amendment. Indeed, it is the only amendment tabled on Report which has my name attached to it. I shall be brief.
The point encapsulated in the last two speeches is very important. The National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland and the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which I worked very closely with when I was the farming Minister in Northern Ireland, all support this amendment. It is also supported by the CLA. That is incredibly widespread support that should enable the Minister to grab it with both hands. It cannot be anything but good for the Government to have the kind of support from the farming community that an amendment such as this carries.
Before I make my other comments, I want to respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who was kindly paying attention, or partly paying attention, to what I said in the previous debate. What I said was that in the United States of America, over 400 people a year die of salmonella. You can get the figures from the Centers for Disease Control. I did not say that they all died from eating chicken. What I also said was that nobody has died from this in the UK in the past 10 years. There may have been one case, but there was a dispute about it.
So it is not a question of looking at populations. The number of deaths in America is huge. Per head of population, food poisoning cases in the United States are 10 times higher than in Great Britain—although I did not go into that. People in America die from salmonella, but here it is not a cause of death. That is the difference, and the point I was making.
This amendment is very important for providing the checks and balances for what is a somewhat haphazard Government. I am not criticising the Minister or his team in this respect, or indeed the Bill team, but it is a haphazard Government, and this would provide checks and balances. The Government cannot rely on the existing structure. For example, I do not think that the Food Standards Agency is resourced or has the overall competence to get involved in the details of trade deals, as the proposed commission would. Of course, bodies such as the FSA and Food Standards Scotland would advise the commission, but the commission would have the main role.
It is also quite important that Amendment 101 not just involves but respects the primacy of Parliament, which Amendment 97 clearly does not. As I read that amendment, it seeks to give a veto over trade deals, and that cannot be right. I shall not recite the contents of Amendment 101, as that would be quite wrong. However, proposed new subsection (4)(d) in Amendment 101 is quite useful. In fact, I think that the Minister himself would probably quite like a list of the existing powers of the Minister, as it would be useful to know. Basically, we would like to know which powers they have got that they are not using. The powers are spread throughout a massive amount of legislation and it would be useful to have a list of them so that we could check which ones they are not using. Proposed new paragraph (f), which ties in with paragraph (c), would make the monitoring of imported foods—something that will not be easy—practical and workable.
We also have to remember that the EU does that for us now. The EU, on behalf of the member states, sends inspectors all over the world to check that farms and food factories are safe and of sufficient quality to supply the EU. We will have to repeat all that ourselves, and therefore it is very important that we have a system for monitoring the situation.
On the efficiency of UK agriculture—I am speaking from memory here—I think that the UK is so efficient in producing milk from dairy cattle that, if the rest of the world replicated our systems, there would be less than half the number of dairy cattle in the world. In other words, we are very efficient, and if we could spread that technology around the world, we would have fewer dairy cattle, less methane, less pollution and much more efficient production.
In short, on the idea of a standing rather than a temporary commission, a standing commission would consist of consumers, traders and producers, and it would instil far more confidence than the six-month commission that the Government have set up. The Minister and his team would be very wise to embrace Amendment 101.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I too will speak on Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, to which I have added my name. The previous three speakers have more than adequately spelled out why it makes a great deal of sense, so I can limit my comments.
The Government, through the joint letter from the Environment Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade, have assured us that standards will not be compromised as part of trade negotiations. Furthermore, I am reassured by the breadth of experience among the agri-food trade advisory group. However, welcome though these developments are, fundamentally they lack the legally binding requirement that properly guarantees that Parliament will have recourse to ensuring that our standards are not diluted.
We all recognise the value of our agricultural standards in promoting the well-being of consumers, producers and the environment. As part of the Government’s ambition to conclude new trade deals, compromises will be required, but it is imperative that they do not encroach on our standards, which must remain a red line. The amendment seeks to turn verbal and written guarantees into a comprehensive legal mechanism that combines independent expertise with parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect our agricultural sector, the environment and, above all, consumers.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the four signatories—proposers and seconders—to Amendment 101, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I support this amendment and added an amendment to it because I wanted to ensure that this Trade and Agriculture Commission had full representation from some of the people who should be on it. I notice that my noble friend Lord Naseby has added another amendment. Actually, I am not sure that my amendment is necessary; it was more to point out the lack of representation in these areas.
In the previous Division, I supported, some what reluctantly, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I did not do so because I doubted, even for one moment, the sincerity of my noble friend Lord Gardiner—I have immense respect for him—but I have been around politics for a while now, and I know that all parties can change manifesto commitments and find some way out of them. Sometimes it is more difficult to explain how they have changed them; for example, I remember a Conservative manifesto pledge about the expansion of Heathrow—“no ifs, no buts”—and that soon changed. I will not get on to that hobby horse at the moment, but I am saying that, despite assurances, things can change.
Therefore, I will address this amendment’s extension of the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission beyond the short period for which it has been set up. I believe it was set up because the Government needed something to try to quell those who were anxious about where the Government were going. I do not think it went far enough. We just sent something back to the Commons, having agreed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and—from my 12 years’ experience as a Whip in the other place—I think there is every chance of it being overturned.
However, as has been said, the Government have a wonderful opportunity; as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it, what is not to like about this amendment? As we heard, it has the support of the NFU, the CLA, environmental bodies and that well-known left-wing organisation the Mail on Sunday. Therefore, this is not some bearded environmentalist’s amendment; this is something that I think the public would like to see as a matter of reassurance. The Government could take credit for accepting this amendment—or tabling their own modification—to reassure the country that we will not be sacrificing our standards to gain a particular trade benefit. Of course those trade deals are incredibly important, but not at any price.
I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to have a good look at the amendment and to think that if the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, puts it to the House, I will be supporting him. I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Naseby that I will not be pressing my own amendment, but we ought to look at some sort of compromise that will sort out this remaining issue.
Most of the time when I have spoken, it has been about the environment and so forth. This is one issue where I am fully supportive of farmers and their livelihoods.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
I agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard on the question of criteria to ensure that UK standards comply with WTO rules. However, in this grouping my main consideration is the composition of the Trade and Agriculture Commission itself. So far, the suggested membership comprises larger industry representation and experts covering quite a narrow group of issues. It does not take in those for environmental matters, climate, pesticides, food safety and other public interests; nor does it those from small and family farms. Consequently, arising from current proposals for this type of restricted TAC membership, there is the worry that problems raised by the public and farmers’ organisations would not be sufficiently addressed, the public interest thereby becoming neglected and even undermined.
That is why Amendment 104 in my name seeks to broaden the composition of the TAC to make it more representative and effective, hence the proposal that its membership instead should look after a much wider field of public interest. That would include animal welfare; climate; pesticides; food safety; hygiene and traceability; agricultural livelihoods; the protection of the environment, including forests; and fair trade with developing countries. I am sure the Minister would agree that this might be a better way to proceed.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 101 in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle. The Government are well aware of the great concerns shared by farmers, the veterinary profession—of which I am a proud member—animal welfare and environmental bodies and, above all, the public about maintaining standards in food, animal welfare and the environment as we embark on negotiating trade agreements in a global market where standards and prices vary greatly and low prices may correlate with low standards, environmental exploitation and, indeed, human exploitation. We must set a threshold of high standards to our global trading partners and, to use a familiar term, level up where necessary.
I hear the Government’s repeated assurances that standards will not be compromised but assurances, to use an old English proverb, butter no parsnips. I regret to say that I am still unconvinced by the Government's arguments explaining their reluctance to incorporate a commitment to standards in this Bill. I also still wonder at the inconsistency of a situation where there is a determination to maintain a legally dubious ban on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef but not to provide our trade negotiators with minimum requirements for much more significant animal welfare, public health or environmental concerns.
That said, the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is to be welcomed, and the Government are to be commended on this pragmatic step. The commission incorporates much expertise and has been given important goals. But—I am sorry that there is a “but”, and it is a big one—born in July, the commission will be dead by December, which is hardly enough time to grow some feathers, let alone fly. With such expertise at its disposal, as we just begin to negotiate trade agreements—a process that will continue for years in a rapidly changing environment—would it not be wise to maintain the commission until it is clear that it is no longer required?
We understand that other existing bodies will ensure the maintenance of current standards. The Food Standards Agency has a proven track record of assuring food safety and I am confident that our food safety will not be compromised, partly because its independence is guaranteed in statute—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in an earlier debate. But which body or bodies will be monitoring, auditing and inspecting, if necessary in countries of origin, animal welfare and environmental standards in the future? If it is to be the FSA, it will need much enhanced resources and expertise.
The recent trade agreement with Japan is welcome news, and we have been assured, in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, of 11 September, that
“we have maintained all existing protections for our high standards of … animal welfare”.
But in the World Animal Protection ratings for farm animal welfare legislation, Japan has a G, which is substantially lower than the UK’s rating. Japan has no specific legislation on animal transportation, the rearing of pigs, laying hens or chickens, and still permits sow stalls and conventional battery cages, in contrast to the UK, which prohibits sow stalls, veal crates and conventional battery cages for laying hens, and has extensive legislation on animal transportation. While the UK has legislation preventing the import of meat not slaughtered to UK standards, will that prohibition be maintained for all countries and, if so, how?
Echoing a question from my noble friend Lord Krebs in the debate on Amendment 93, which body or bodies are going to ensure animal products imported from Japan or anywhere else are produced to standards of welfare and husbandry, and with due regard to environmental standards, that are not lower than we demand of our own farmers? In reply to Amendment 93, the Minister said that we will repatriate audit and inspection capability hitherto provided by the EU, but I ask the Minister, who is going to carry out these vital audit and verification functions? Are they ready and fit for purpose? What about their independence?
This whole issue merits continuing oversight of welfare and environmental standards by an independent group of experts analogous to the Food Standards Agency. The BSE and other food crises demonstrated, historically, the need for and value of an independent body to oversee aspects of our food. It led to the creation of the Food Standards Agency. It separated the conflicted interests of Defra, which quite properly supports the producers and suppliers of our food, from the role of protecting our consumers. Surely it is in the Government’s interest and is a basic tenet of good regulatory process that these two functions—supporting providers and safeguarding consumers—be separated.
I have a last question. While the TAC is due to be wound up after it reports in December, the minutes of its first meeting in August show that it is considering the enduring need for a similar group or groups in the longer term. I ask the Minister, if the commission advises that it ought to have a continuing role or that a similar body be created with a similar role, will the Government give that genuine and serious consideration?
In conclusion, I strongly support this amendment to ensure that, for imported food products, there is an independent body of expertise in animal welfare and environmental standards to advise the Government on future trade agreements.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. It ensures that the Trade and Agriculture Commission that the Department for International Trade has established will not be toothless, transitory and a bit of a fig leaf. Your Lordships can hear that I am being rather less complimentary about the establishment of the commission than many other noble Lords. In my view, it defies description that it can be expected to carry out this valuable role in the time it has been given. I will come on to talk about the inadequacies of its composition.
We absolutely need the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, to ensure that the commission has an ongoing, effective role in ensuring standards and holding the Government to account through all the successive trade negotiations, that it has that valuable, essential ability to report openly to Parliament and that Parliament has the opportunity to influence successive agreements.
I also support Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which provides criteria for appointment to the commission. One of the reasons I am anxious about the nature of the commission is its reporting arrangements. At the moment it reports to the Department for International Trade and is a bit of a poodle body of that part of government.
I know the Minister will tell us that Defra is fully involved and working jointly with the Department for International Trade, but the impression I get is that the environment is very much an afterthought. There is only one environmental member of the commission, and there has been very little discussion of any environmental issues in the commission’s two meetings so far. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just admirably demonstrated how the arrangements for oversight of issues such as animal welfare and the environment are inadequate in its current construction.
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, because it clearly lays out the criteria for membership of the commission and would help plug the gap that very much exists at the moment, in that consumer and environmental organisations and experts are, if not underrepresented, totally missing. It would mean that the commission has the right range of skills to go with the full set of teeth that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, would give it. I think we should support both those amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I agree with her comments on the TAC. This group of extremely important amendments completes our debates on this issue. A large number of your Lordships have spoken knowledgeably and passionately on the subject.
During previous debates on this subject, many noble Lords reiterated the inadequacies of the Trade and Agriculture Commission as currently proposed. It is advisory only; there is no compunction on the Government to follow its advice or recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked the Minister whether the Government are satisfied with the temporary commission or whether an amendment to make it permanent would be better, so that it had some teeth and would therefore be able to respond to the first Dimbleby report.
There are no members representing the views of environmentalists or animal welfare or consumer groups. Can the Minister say how the commission as set up will inspire and maintain the confidence of the public, given that its chair referred to public concern over chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef as “alarmism”? Making such a statement does little to reassure the public of his independence.
Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, sets out how the TAC should be established and operate. This is very specific, and I will avoid making a Second Reading speech. It is bizarre that the Government do not wish the TAC to continue its work into the future. This amendment will not create a barrier to trade. The majority of farmers’ income will come from producing and trading food.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, in his Amendment 102, seeks to correct the deficiencies of membership of the original commission and ensure a more inclusive membership. This is an amendment to the splendid amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has similarly spoken to his amendment on membership of the TAC.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has reminded us of the view of the NFU in Scotland that the standards of our farmers should not be undercut by trade deal standards and should be safeguarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded us that the NFUs of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with the CLA, all support this amendment, which respects the primacy of Parliament.
With a few notable exceptions, every speaker is in favour of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which had enormous support during previous stages of the Bill. Ensuring the TAC is independent, representative and has the necessary legislative backing is vital if it is to be successful.
This group of amendments is all about protecting farmers and ensuring that the public can feel confident in the food we buy and eat. I feel certain that the Minister understands the strength of feeling in the House on this issue. I trust that his response to the questions posed this evening will be positive, and that those of us concerned about this subject can be reassured. And I apologise for my croaky voice.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This has been another good debate on another key issue in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments, which cover the key variances of opinion on approaches to food standards for imported product through the mechanism of a Trade and Agriculture Commission.
In Committee, I expressed anxiety about the approach of a Trade and Agriculture Commission, should this be the only way that UK food and production standards could be maintained as future trade deals are negotiated. From these Benches, we wanted to secure the enactment of the UK’s minimum level of food standards by enshrining it in legislation. That your Lordships’ House passed this measure earlier tonight has added to our confidence that the House of Commons is being asked to think again on this issue.
This allows us to approach these amendments with confidence that the Trade and Agriculture Commission could provide valuable insights and independent analysis on all trade deals concerning food standards, which would encompass the equivalents of production methods, welfare standards and environmental conditions that apply in the UK.
There are essentially two amendments from two very eminent Members of your Lordships’ House, although they are subject to further amendments. Amendment 97 is led by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She has come into the House from the Commons, having served as a very successful chair of the other place’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. I pay tribute to the way she steered that prominent committee.
Amendment 101, also with amendments, is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and others. It has the backing of the National Farmers Union, which has been prominent in discussions throughout proceedings both here and in the Commons. The NFU could not team up with a better proponent for agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, spoke of his reflections on his career in agriculture. Over many years, he and I met at several key moments of agricultural policy developments. They might be designated as crossroads for agriculture. Here is another: he will probably say that he has met me too often.
While I commend the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, we much prefer the reconsidered amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Henig in her summary of the situation. We will support Amendment 101 rather than Amendment 97, should that be pressed to a vote.
We welcome the developments that took place over the summer and I can signal that we will approve the amendment, with or without the further amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Amendment 102 widens the representation on the commission and further enshrines its permanence beyond the temporary nature that was the Government’s very limited concession on this proposal. That amendment provides better clarity on Amendment 101 than Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, puts the commission on a statutory and permanent basis, with key powers to make recommendations to the Government and Parliament on all future trade deals. This key improvement should be taken back to the Commons for reconsideration, underlined by the widespread approval of this House. This key mechanism to adjudicate independently on trade deals is needed for consumer confidence and demanded by farmers, endorsed by all their unions in all parts of the United Kingdom. The NFU has secured the agreement of the British public through a petition signed by over a million people.
The potential loophole that exists for food that goes into the food service sector needs to be plugged by the commission. We would contend that your Lordships should return this amendment to the Commons with a powerful majority. The commission could build up considerable expertise that will be crucial for the future of food standards and an excellent resource in parliamentary scrutiny of future trade deals.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to another thought-provoking debate. I will deal with the amendments as one because they are so interrelated.
As noble Lords will be aware, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retains in law our standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health, and food safety at the end of the transition period. The independent advice of our food regulators, the FSA and FSS, and the rigorous processes they have developed, will continue to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations, including imports under new free trade deals. A range of other government agencies, such as the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Health and Safety Executive and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, will ensure that the full range of standards and import requirements within their remits are upheld.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will remember what I said in response to an earlier group of amendments, but I will repeat it. The FSA has doubled the number of risk assessors since 2017. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It also takes into account wider consumer interests such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also spoke about the Japan trade deal. The audit and verification function is currently being developed within Defra and will be in place and operational before the end of the transition period. All existing import standards will continue to apply to the new Japan trade deal, as they will for other trade agreements.
In addition, a range of established stakeholder groups is already in place to advise the Government on trade policy development. These include the DIT’s agri-food trade advisory group, which has a recently renewed membership of more than 30 representatives from the industry who will provide close technical and strategic advice to the Government as negotiations progress. This approach has been welcomed by these stakeholders as a way to input meaningfully into ongoing trade talks. Defra also continues to run various supply chain advisory groups, such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. These groups already provide valuable expert advice to help the Government develop trade policy and they will continue to do so.
In addition to this, the Government listened closely to valuable feedback from Parliament and stakeholders, most notably the NFU—of which I should declare my membership—to strengthen these existing arrangements. In July we established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which operates under the auspices of the Department for International Trade. Defra is closely involved in this work and Defra officials are part of the commission’s secretariat.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, and the small number of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of my amendments. In particular, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for seeing merit in my amendments—as indeed I do in his amendment. But I wonder why my noble friend has included the necessity to have representation of the public interest on fair trade with developing countries, without having it on fair trade with developed countries. Many—in fact, all—of the countries with which we are currently in trade negotiations are, I believe, developed countries. But I certainly congratulate him on his thoughts and ideas on that subject.
I also rather regret that I did not put down an amendment to Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to do the same kinds of things as the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, but goes somewhat further. That was a missed trick on my part; I had thought of putting down these amendments early in the process, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Curry, had not put down his amendment at that time.
As I said in my remarks, I am of the mind and the opinion that it is unnecessary to strengthen the powers of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, for the reasons that I mentioned. I am also persuaded by my noble friend the Minister’s explanation that the existing regulatory bodies and the new committees are well equipped to take care of the interests of your Lordships’ House in maintaining our high standards and regulations.
I regret very much that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is also silent on the need to conform to WTO regulations, because it is of the most extreme importance that this country should be a strong advocate and ambassador for free trade around the world, and should play a leading part in the WTO. If we start out also as a second outlier, like the EU has become, we will not be able to realise our potential as an influencer of the best emerging trade standards around the world in the future.
In these circumstances, and having heard my noble friend the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I think we have had an excellent debate and I thank everyone who has contributed for their gracious remarks about all the amendments. Those who have spoken and who have put the amendments forward have gone to great lengths to consider the topic this evening and in Committee. Just to put my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s mind at rest—I am sure the Minister will confirm this—I cannot imagine for a minute that any Minister of the Crown serving Her Majesty’s Government would put anything forward that does not comply with World Trade Organization rules. We are, first and foremost, a nation that plays by the rules and abides by the rules and we have a good track record in that regard.
I would just like to express disappointment. I understand from the notes that came round that the Minister is prepared to answer a couple more questions if I raise them at this stage, and, if we are to vote on amendments tonight or at a later stage, I think this would be helpful to know. My noble friend listed again the bodies that look at food safety, but my concern is that we are continuing to confuse food standards and food safety. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has done the House a great service this evening by pressing the Minister on which body will actually carry out the audits and inspections. I want to put that as a direct question to my noble friend, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave. If he is asking the Food Standards Agency to do this work, it is work that it already does when it is food coming in from third countries, as the EU and other countries will be when we have left.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, for the sake of the record, I will repeat for my noble friend my replies to the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I said that since 2017, the FSA has doubled the number of its risk assessors. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff, and it has recruited an additional 35 members to its advisory committees. In addition, I should say to my noble friend that it takes wider consumer interests into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security. I also said in my reply that the function of audit and verification is currently being developed within Defra and will be in place and operational before the end of the transition period.
I am not going to repeat my speech about the number and range of trade advisory groups and the people who have been asked to join the working groups on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I said specifically that the wide inclusion of authoritative figures was a testament to the fact that the Government recognise the need for advice on these matters and will listen. I am surprised at the suggestion from my noble friend that this country does not have within its midst—because it does—people with great expertise in trade negotiations. That is why we want the Trade and Agriculture Commission to have within it people with a range of expertise. The commission was specifically asked to undertake this work in the context of there already being statutory bodies in place, and I think I have given, in very long and detailed responses to both this and an earlier group, details of the capability and the range of work that the FSA and other bodies will undertake.
On the arrangements for a commitment to a transparent and inclusive trade policy, I shall repeat again what I said, so that it is clear. Parliament has a clear scrutiny role under CRaG which provides parliamentarians with a period of 21 sitting days to scrutinise the final treaty text before it can be ratified. Those are the provisions that I set out. I also said that we would be going beyond the statutory requirements of CRaG. I shall not repeat the long passage I set out earlier, but we will set out the way in which Parliament will be informed and updated, and the way in which Parliament and the committees of both Houses will have a very considerable opportunity to opine on these arrangements.
On the national food strategy, I am sorry, but Henry Dimbleby has been asked to do a very thorough piece of work and he has been undertaking that. My noble friend may say that it is not satisfactory that his final report will not be available until the end of the Trade Bill, but I have no doubt that during the passage of that Bill, Parliament will have a lot to say—I am convinced that parliamentarians in both Houses will have a great deal to say. It does not mean that we should stop the Trade Bill because we are awaiting the very important final report from Henry Dimbleby. As I have already said, the Trade and Agriculture Commission has been asked to look into some of the early recommendations in Henry Dimbleby’s report. I have nothing more to say on the matter. I have explained why I think the Government’s bona fides are strong, but I sense that your Lordships will think to the contrary.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 100. 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 during the course of the debate.
Amendment 100
“Contribution of agriculture and associated land use to climate change targets
(1) In performing functions under this Act, the Secretary of State must have due regard to—(a) the target for 2050 contained in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and (b) international climate change treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.(2) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations introduce an interim target for 2030 which would provide for agriculture and associated land use to reduce and sequester climate change emissions in a manner commensurate with meeting the target for 2050.(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the policies Her Majesty’s Government will pursue to meet the interim target for 2030.(4) Before fulfilling the requirements under subsections (2) and (3), the Secretary of State must—(a) consult the devolved authorities, and(b) obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.(5) Regulations under subsection (2) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(6) In this section—“Committee on Climate Change” means the body established under section 32 of the Climate Change Act 2008;“devolved authorities” has the meaning outlined in section 40 of this Act.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their support to this amendment.
Our amendment would require the Government when applying this Act to have due regard to their national and international obligations set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Paris Agreement. It also requires the Government within six months to set an interim target for 2030, setting out how agriculture and land use could play their part in reducing and sequestrating emissions. This would be followed within 12 months by a strategy setting out how this will be achieved. We have additionally required the Government to obtain and take account of the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.
There are very good reasons why these steps are necessary. Climate change is a global challenge, and the UK has an obligation to play its part. The Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050 is welcome as far as it goes, but noble Lords will know that we are way behind in meeting the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets that would make the commitment a reality.
To be successful, every sector must play its part, whether it is energy, transport, housing or, in this case, agriculture, which is currently responsible for about 10% of total emissions. So we welcome the addition in Clause 1(1)(d) of the Bill that financial assistance can be given for
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change.”
But what does this mean if there is no strategy and no targets to deliver it? As the Committee on Climate Change points out in its report this year,
“the current voluntary approach has failed to cut agricultural emissions, there has been no coherent policy to improve the resilience of the agricultural sector, and tree planting has failed outside Scotland.”
This is pretty damning, and it is why our amendment seeks to deliver legislation and a mechanism for detailed policy design, which the committee recommends is necessary to deliver the transformation that is needed. Even the Government’s own progress report on implementing the 25-year environment plan, published in June, shows emissions of greenhouse gases from natural resources in a downward negative trend, with agricultural emissions remaining stagnant. So overall we seem to be going backwards.
In her response to similar amendments in Committee, the Minister tried to put a more positive gloss on progress, citing efficiency gains in dairy and pork. I am sure that that is good progress and we welcome that. But you cannot cherry pick when the Government’s own analysis is saying overall that there are different trends.
In her response, the Minister also argued for a generalist approach to climate change, saying that we do not have sector-specific targets under the Climate Change Act. That is true, but all the steps that the Government have taken since are focused on actions by different departments—for example, in renewable energy, electric cars and housing retrofit. Despite the criticisms of the Natural Capital Committee for the lack of meaningful metrics, even the 25-year environment plan also aims to have specific targets. So agriculture must step up and play its part in reducing emissions.
The Paris Agreement requires signatories to set long-term climate plans as well as shorter-term 2030 goals. This is why we have included an interim 2030 target in our amendment. Meanwhile, the Committee on Climate Change has written to the Defra Minister, Victoria Prentis, setting out how ELMS could be shaped to meet our climate change obligations. It has identified four important areas that need to be addressed and has offered to support Defra in setting out how climate change risks can be incorporated in the delivery of the ELMS outcomes.
We welcome this offer of help and support, which is why we have specified in our amendment that the advice of the Committee on Climate Change should be taken into account. We believe that the amendment is central to delivering the Government’s aspiration of net zero and ensuring that the farming sector plays its full part.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has laid out the need for this amendment with great clarity, and perhaps I can inject a little bit of the emotion that this amendment gives rise to for me. Earlier, I said that the amendment on food standards was probably the most important one, but in fact, this is of course the most important from a long-term point of view because it is all about survival. I am trying to save the planet and the people on it; even the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is part of the group that I want to save—from itself, really.
We know that farming is a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is likely to grow as a percentage of our emissions as we decarbonise other parts of the economy. Therefore, it is going to get worse and worse if we do not have a clear plan for how to go forward. For me, this Government have shown no urgency; I cannot convey the urgency I feel when I think about what is happening to our planet and the destruction caused by our burning fossil fuels. The Government have not shown any logical trajectory towards zero carbon emissions; they are just dabbling, with a good idea here and an idea there that is probably not quite so good. There is no coherent vision.
The Government have to start budgeting carbon in exactly the same way that they budget money. I realise that budgets are out of the window at the moment due to the coronavirus, but the fact is that we do need to think about it like that and say that, if we allow one area to have more carbon, we have to decrease it in another. Actually, the Green Party has been calling for a “carbon chancellor”: somebody who can take an overall look at this issue, understand how the systems and the economy work and try to make a coherent plan.
This Bill has been bouncing around for three years now and has been delayed several times. It was written two years before the Government adopted a net-zero carbon emissions target, which means that we need to update it because it does not reflect the new net-zero target that the Government have set themselves. Amendment 100 is a genuinely cross-party amendment and will set British farming on a trajectory towards net-zero emissions. We desperately need it, and I very much hope that the Government will listen.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The hour is late, but it is also late for our planet. While I do not take quite such a pessimistic view of the Government’s actions in this field as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—in fact, they should be congratulated in many respects—for many of us, things are not moving fast enough, and we need to encapsulate some of this in the Bill.
I agree that the NFU has brought forward its own ideas, but there is a lot more to this. For example, I know that Defra is looking at the issue of burning blanket bogs, but surely, under ELMS, we will not be able to give money to land managers who consistently burn peat bogs. That should also be part of the Bill.
I will not detain noble Lords any longer. I support the amendment and I recognise that the Government have taken steps towards it. Perhaps we are too impatient, but we need to get on with it.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment has been most ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I want to briefly re-emphasise the reasons why I strongly support it. As the noble Baroness said, agriculture has to play its part in meeting our net-zero commitment. At the moment, as she also said, agriculture may account for only some 10% of UK emissions, but by 2050, if nothing is done about agriculture and other parts of our economy play their part, it could account for about a third.
In earlier debates, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to an excellent new book by Professor Bridle entitled Food and Climate Change Without the Hot Air. Professor Bridle expresses the challenge by calculating that, at the moment, the average daily food-related greenhouse gas footprint for each of us in the UK is six tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, we need to halve emissions by 2030. In other words, if food and agriculture are to play their part, the footprint of every one of us has to go down from six to three tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence per day within 10 years.
We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the climate change committee has repeatedly reported that agriculture and land use are not making their required contribution to our greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This leaves an intolerable burden on other sectors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has already said. I will share a different quote from the climate change committee’s 2020 report to Parliament:
“Agriculture and land use, land-use change and forestry … have … made little progress.”
It concludes that there has been no net change in emissions over 10 years, and no coherent policy framework to deliver change.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, referred to peat bogs. Last Sunday’s Observer reported that there are currently no plans to stop burning peat bogs this autumn. Peat bogs are a major carbon store and burning them releases significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Surely, if the Government are serious about their green credentials and about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land use and agriculture, they should ban this burning now.
Agriculture is not delivering the necessary greenhouse gas reductions. This Bill is the chance to change that and ensure that the right policies are put in place. The Climate Change Act is, in the argot of the day, an oven-ready framework within which to place both agricultural emissions reduction targets and climate adaptation to make our future agriculture resilient to climate change. That is why we need to support this amendment.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in my capacity as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership and as a member of the Cumbria Leadership Board, I have recently been involved in debates about carbon in that county. One of the things that concerns me is the debate around emissions which, inevitably, is not quite as simple as one might expect at first blush.
It is clear, however, that any strategy has to begin with where we are now. It must also recognise that it is almost inevitable that those with some kind of an interest are inclined to engage in special pleading. In the case of agriculture, I know that farming contributes; I am a farmer, and I know that my farm does. However, farmers, including myself, have to react and deal with what may be the considerable and costly implications of the appropriate response. As has already been said by one of the Baroness Joneses, the first thing is to have agreed metrics, and then to use them impartially to map the journey into the future, based on the information they give us.
Business accounts are compiled with agreed metrics and standards to present a true picture of the underlying economic activity. The same must be true with carbon accounting. I fear I may sound like a cracked record but, once again, the economic implications and consequences of effecting change must not destroy the agricultural industry and other rural land uses. As the Financial Times pointed out last weekend, the economic future for much of the UK industries in these sectors looks pretty parlous.
In the case of rural land uses, a number of activities are natural carbon sinks and cleaners. Those responsible for the framework of the new world must give proper financial recognition for that. In many cases, what they are doing now is being done for nothing, both for the general benefit of the wider public and the financial advantage of the polluters. Were polluters to actually have to pay, it not only would be a major step towards reducing emissions elsewhere but would help underpin the rural economy, parts of which are pretty fragile and part of left-behind Britain. The short truth of the matter is that insolvent businesses cannot deliver a brave new world in rural Britain. Furthermore, if that happens, a great deal of what we have been considering over the past days and weeks will turn out to have been pure fantasy. It is as simple as that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 100 and echo many of the sentiments in it, but pay regard to the role that farmers, landowners and the landscape have in reducing the challenge faced by climate change and helping to restore biodiversity, much of which has been discussed through the passage of the Bill.
There is a potential role for farmers in ELM schemes going forward. There is a lot more that the natural landscape can do, not least in areas such as national parks. I know that the North York Moors National Park is keen to play its role and is waiting to hear from the Government about how it can do that under the ELM scheme; in particular, what advice it can offer to farmers and rural businesses that can help. There will be opportunities to plant trees and to help carbon sequestration. Pasture-fed and grass-fed livestock will also help.
There are other opportunities in the Bill, which I hope my noble friend will explore in summing up this group of amendments. There are possibilities to adapt to and mitigate climate change. I always get excited about Slowing the Flow at Pickering and the possibility of rolling out other such schemes, working with nature to store water temporarily on the land. We must not lose sight of the fact that many farmers are small or tenant farmers. They do not own the land, so will not benefit from any of these schemes. I hope that my noble friend and the Government bear that in the back of their mind. The Bill already reflects a commitment that helps farmers to manage livestock in a way that mitigates and adapts to climate change. I welcome the opportunity provided by Amendment 100 to discuss those issues.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it really is quite obvious that this amendment is vital, and I congratulate my noble friend on having introduced it.
We talk a good deal about the impact of climate change on farming and all the difficulties and challenges that it presents, but we do not talk enough about the negative impact of farming on the climate and the acceleration of climate change that results from such negative realities. We also know that that need not be so and that a great deal can be done in farming at least to ameliorate the negative contribution but also to find ways of not contributing at all to the negative impact. From that standpoint, I believe it is essential that we have in place real and effective arrangements to measure and monitor changes in agricultural performance, habits and styles to meet the challenge that we are talking about.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. All noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have spoken passionately and knowledgeably on the subject of climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, believes that a real plan for how to move forward is essential, but the Government have no vision on how to achieve this.
Unlike many of your Lordships, I am not an expert, but I can see all around me the signs that the planet is warming, and this is having a detrimental effect on all of us. Farming is often blamed for contributing to climate change, and certainly it does not help, but the blame cannot be laid entirely at the door of farmers. We are all responsible and have our part to play in reducing carbon emissions.
The target of 2050 for the reduction of our emissions is far too far away. In order to monitor our progress as a nation, an interim target of 2030 is essential. Agriculture and the NFU have estimated that they will be able to achieve their net zero target by 2040. It is a pity that the Government cannot follow this example.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, referred to the burning of peat bogs, and I ask the Minister whether such a practice would qualify under the ELMS. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, stressed how important it is to reduce our emissions by 2030, and I am sure we all agree. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expressed concern around the debate on emissions that farmers need to respond to the problems before them, taking into account the economic consequences. He said that the rural economy is very fragile and that a degree of realism is needed.
As I have said previously, I will not be here in 2050, but my children and grandchildren will, as will the children and grandchildren of the majority of noble Lords taking part today. I will give just two very different examples of the effects of climate change globally.
I am lucky enough to have stood in the Maasai Mara very close to a white rhino. I was absolutely terrified and did not move a muscle. What a magnificent beast it was. Soon, if we do nothing, the 3,000 that are left out of the previous 65,000 will be gone. On a more parochial level, the bullfinch is one of my favourite birds and used to be seen in our hedgerows. This bird has all but disappeared from our countryside, and it is nearly five years since I saw a solitary bullfinch.
UK agriculture alone has not directly caused these two instances, but it has not helped. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we need to address this and have effective targets. Now is the time to take action; now is the time to set an interim target for 2030; and now is the time to stand up and be counted. I hope that the Minister is able to agree with this amendment and I look forward to his comments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very important debate on the noble Baroness’s Amendment 100. The first thing I would like to say is that I am most terribly sorry if a letter has not been attended to, but the messaging I have had is that, whatever the noble Lady decides, my door is always open and we can arrange meetings if there are—as I know there will be—continuing discussions on a range of things relating to climate change and agriculture. I want to put on record that I try my best to attend to correspondence and it seems that this one has slipped through the net—so I apologise for that.
This is a crucial matter and, as far as I am concerned, we must all work together on this. In June 2019, the Government amended the Climate Change Act to legislate for a target of net zero by 2050 and introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. The Government have set these as interim targets on the road to net-zero emissions. I am particularly interested in this matter, and I went through the noble Baroness’s amendment. The Secretary of State is already required to have due regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero as set out in the legally binding Climate Change Act 2008, and in reference to the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The Committee on Climate Change advised that emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors to achieve the UK’s net-zero GHG emissions target by 2050. Targets are set by the Act, but we do not have sector-specific targets under it; this is true across all sectors and departments. The absence of legally defined sector-specific targets ensures that we can meet our climate change commitments in the most cost-effective way across the economy, maximising social and environmental benefits and mitigating damaging trade-offs.
In the United Kingdom, agriculture at this moment constitutes 10% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. I entirely agree that agriculture must—and I underline “must”—play its part in addressing this grave matter. I note, for example, the 2019 report from the Committee on Climate Change on achieving net zero, which says:
“It is difficult to reduce agriculture emissions to near-zero given the inherent biological processes and chemical reactions arising from crops, soils and livestock.”
Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by 16% since 1990, with many farms using more efficient agricultural practices. My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised land-use change and forestry: all of these can continue to provide benefits in carbon sequestration. I would be the first to say that more needs to be done, and much more needs to be done.
I am obviously pleased about the ambition shown by many in the sector, including the National Farmers’ Union. Climate change represents a significant challenge. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, quite rightly feels passionately about this matter, so perhaps the words “significant challenge” are a terrible understatement. This is a very grave matter that we need to address. However, I will say that there are great opportunities for the sector, and we will continue to work closely on this issue with the NFU and other leading stakeholders, including through the Greenhouse Gas Action Plan partnership.
Another point the noble Baroness made in her amendment was on the devolved Administrations. Agriculture is a devolved matter, as we all know, so each national Administration is responsible for their own policy to address climate change in the direction of agriculture. The nations are united in a desire to reach net zero and reduce emissions from agriculture. This can be seen, for example, in DAERA’s efficient farming implementation plan, or in the Welsh Government’s Prosperity for All publication that outlines their low-carbon delivery plan. We will work together across the union to ensure we are delivering a solution that will work for the whole of the United Kingdom. This includes agreeing common frameworks, which include a framework on the best available techniques for preventing and minimising emissions.
Defra takes a key role in supporting emissions reduction from agriculture and land use by providing scientific advice and evidence. This includes long-term breeding work to develop more efficient, productive and resilient crops and livestock, as well as research on more efficient feeding strategies for livestock. Such research includes the clean growth through sustainable intensification project, which is due to complete in November of this year. This research has been carried out alongside academics, government officials, stakeholders and farmers, and will outline productivity and land management options, as well as advice on actions and innovative technologies that will reduce emissions from agriculture. These options will be the most effective, best value for money and most feasible for the sector to action. This research has influenced, and will continue to influence, development of future farming policies such as ELM.
I am very pleased that Clause 1(1)(d) of the Bill already enables the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the purposes of
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”.
ELM will be the key delivery mechanism for this and a powerful vehicle for achieving goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, our net-zero target and commitments made in the Clean Growth Strategy. Schemes such as the productivity grant scheme, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the expanded Countryside Stewardship scheme will also contribute to emission-reduction goals alongside ELM. I agree with the point that my noble friend Lady McIntosh made: working with nature will be an increasing imperative and feature of our work.
As set out in the ELM policy discussion document published in February, it is proposed that tier 3 of the scheme should focus on delivering landscape-scale projects that can make significant contributions to national priorities such as net zero. This could include funding for afforestation, peatland restoration and wetland creation. We have proposed that the scheme should also incentivise environmentally sustainable farming through tier 1 and the delivery of locally targeted environmental actions through tier 2.
The provisions of the Environment Bill will bring all climate change legislation within the enforcement remit of the office for environmental protection, also known as the OEP. Under the robust governance framework established through the Climate Change Act, our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, scrutinise government actions and hold us to account. The OEP will work closely alongside the Committee on Climate Change on climate issues, ensuring that their individual roles complement and reinforce each other.
The OEP is required to monitor the Government’s progress in improving the natural environment in accordance with the content of environmental improvement plans, the first of which is the 25-year environment plan, and—I emphasise—targets. It must produce an annual report on its findings. When undertaking this independent assessment of the Government’s progress, the OEP may consider that the Government could improve progress in meeting one or more of the goals within the 25-year environment plan. For example, this could include a recommendation that additional funding be provided to deliver the purposes set out in Clause 1 of the Agriculture Bill.
Having now been given a sight of her letter, I also say to the noble Baroness that Defra is not the only department responding to climate change. Reducing carbon emissions and enhancing the environment are priorities for the Government. Indeed, there is a new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change to oversee this effort and drive forward action across the whole of government. BEIS leads across government on climate change and net zero, and all departments are working to deliver. For example, DfT published the first phase of our transport decarbonisation plan in March 2020 and MHCLG aims to publish a heat and building strategy later this year. Next year the UK will host the vital COP 26 climate negotiations, and we are determined to use this conference to promote ambitious action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris Agreement.
I looked very closely at the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendment. I think I have covered all the components of the amendment in terms of what the Secretary of State is already required under law to have due regard to in this matter. I have spoken of our work with the devolved Administrations, which again is imperative because there is no point us all spinning in our own orbits. This will need a collaborative approach.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support this evening. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, there are a lot of good words and good intentions on climate change but no “logical trajectory”, as the noble Baroness put it. There is a desperate need for more measurement and metrics. It has been an ongoing criticism from the Natural Capital Committee that we are just not very good at having baseline measurements and measuring progress. That issue has run through this debate.
The noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Inglewood, rightly said that farmers understood the problems and wanted to help. A number of noble Lords welcomed the NFU’s commitment and ambition for a 2040 target. The good will is there, but support and help need to be provided to make it happen. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, identified famers’ concerns about the economic consequences if they are not given the help to make that transition. There are, of course, economic consequences, which is why it is important that we harness schemes such as the ELMS to help farmers make the transition and enable them to play their part. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Several noble Lords also recognised that there are opportunities for rewarding the benefits from carbon sinks. The economic impact of this does not have to be just negative. Planting trees, and all the other regreening we are able to do, could have a positive one for the farming community. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there is a cost to inaction as well. If we do not tackle the negative impact of climate change—extreme weather and so on—that also affects the economies of farming communities. They suffer as well when these extreme events take place. We have no option but to take action on this; the question is how we go forward on it.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the burning of peat bogs. We are all slightly concerned about this. The Minister did not mention it in his response, but it would be helpful to know when the Government are going to introduce a ban on it, which would be a very simple first step.
I welcome the Minister’s offer to work together. I also welcome his understanding of the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in. There is a bit of a contradiction about the term “sector-specific”. The Minister’s initial response was, “We don’t want anything too sector-specific because we need to look across all departments to see what different roles they can play”, but then he referred to other departments working on very specific things. In all honesty, other government departments are moving ahead quicker than Defra and we are getting left behind. That is my real concern.
He mentioned a number of activities taking place within Defra, but the external independent bodies that measure our progress—the Committee on Climate Change is just one—are sounding alarm bells, saying that progress is neither fast enough nor deep enough. Whatever the Government are doing is simply not enough. This is not just me making a political point; it is a more general concern from the experts outside.
We come back to the need for proper metrics and measurement, which is key. The Minister talked about the devolved nations. Our amendment refers to the need to consult them. It is important that we involve them in tackling this issue. I hope, as I am sure he does, that we will work together to reach our own solutions.
There is a lot of good will here. I am very grateful for the tone that the Minister has set, and for his open door going forward. We may well be pushing at it. I hope he understands that, in the meantime, I still feel that it is important to put these issues in the Bill. I would welcome the opportunity to talk but, in the meantime, we would feel more content if the legal responsibilities that he talked about were in the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, want to move Amendment 101?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 101.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Amendments 102 and 102A are amendments to Amendment 101. Does the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, wish to move Amendment 102?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“Trade and Agriculture Commission
(1) The Trade and Agriculture Commission (“the TAC”) is established.(2) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the TAC must produce a report making recommendations to the Secretary of State to promote, maintain and safeguard current standards of food production through international trade policy, including standards related to food safety, the environment and animal welfare.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (2) before Parliament on the date of publication.(4) The report under subsection (2) must include—(a) recommendations for the policies and legislation that the Government may adopt, including the necessary processes and institutions, in order to ensure that imported agri-food products placed on the market in the United Kingdom meet equivalent standards to those required of UK producers and that UK law and policy relating to food imports is effectively supportive of high standards, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare both domestically and internationally;(b) where relevant production standards are not provided for in existing primary or secondary legislation in the United Kingdom, recommendations for the policies and legislation that the Government may adopt, including the necessary processes and institutions (such as testing regimes, assurance schemes and certification bodies), in order to ensure that imported agri-food products sold in the United Kingdom are produced to appropriately high standards in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare;(c) the scope of agri-food standards and regulations for production methods and final and intermediate products that are relevant to agri-food products which the Government should aim to maintain in future trade negotiations relating to the trade of agri-food products;(d) identification of existing powers exercisable by a Minister of the Crown for administering, enforcing and monitoring standards as set out in paragraph (c), including import restrictions based on those standards;(e) recommendations about how to ensure effective and transparent comparison of agri-food production standards with international standards, including how different production systems and regulatory approaches might be considered equivalent to those that apply in the United Kingdom;(f) recommendations for how to monitor imports of agri-food products in order to assess and compare the standards as defined under paragraph (c); (g) consideration of exceptions to import restrictions of agricultural products, for instance where a requirement may have negative impacts on consumer interests or on developing countries, and recommendations of how best to manage such exceptions; and(h) recommendations for public and Parliamentary scrutiny of any current or future trade negotiations relating to the trade of agri-food products with a view to agreeing an international trade agreement consistent with the TAC’s other recommendations under subsection (2).(5) In addition to the report under subsection (2), the TAC must produce a report relating to each and any international trade agreement agreed, negotiated or concluded by the Government at any time after the commencement of this Act, prior to such an agreement being signed, considering its impact on the trade of agri-food products.(6) A report under subsection (5) must assess the terms of the international trade agreement under consideration and its impact on the Secretary of State’s ability to promote, maintain and safeguard standards of agri-food production, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare.(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report under subsection (5) before Parliament on the date of publication, and a Minister of the Crown must move a motion to consider any recommendations in the report in each House of Parliament prior to the relevant agreement being signed.(8) The relevant international trade agreement may not be signed by the Secretary of State or another Minister of the Crown within 21 days of a motion being moved under subsection (7).(9) “International trade agreement” means—(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).(10) The TAC may create such working groups and commission such research as it deems appropriate to meet its duties under subsections (2) and (5).(11) Within three months of a report being laid under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must—(a) lay before Parliament a response to the TAC’s report and all its recommendations, including how the Secretary of State intends to maintain the United Kingdom’s standards for food production in importing agricultural products in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare, and(b) make a statement to Parliament on the Government’s response to the TAC’s recommendations.(12) Ministers of the Crown must table motions for resolution regarding the response under subsection (11) in each House of Parliament.(13) It shall be an objective of the Secretary of State to achieve outcomes consistent with the relevant resolutions passed under subsection (12).(14) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument confer further functions on the TAC after the report under subsection (2) has been published.(15) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the period of three months under subsection (2) provided that such an extension is agreed by the TAC in writing. (16) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (14) is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(17) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (15) is subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Apiculture
4A(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations modify any of the following legislation so far as it has effect in relation to Wales—(a) retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture, and(b) subordinate legislation relating to that legislation.(2) In this paragraph “retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture” includes in particular—(a) Articles 55 to 57 of the CMO Regulation, and(b) retained direct EU legislation made under that legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Welsh Ministers to amend retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Apiculture
5A(1) DAERA may by regulations modify any of the following legislation so far as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland—(a) retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture, and(b) subordinate legislation relating to that legislation.(2) In this paragraph “retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture” includes in particular—(a) Articles 55 to 57 of the CMO Regulation, and(b) retained direct EU legislation made under that legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to amend retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
““EU regulation”, “EU decision” and “EU tertiary legislation” have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (see section 20 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments to insert new Clauses (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) and (Retained direct EU legislation).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other government amendments to Clause 50 are about the extent to which the Secretary of State and the devolved administrations may make supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision in connection with provisions of the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical. They amend the list of provisions in the Bill for which the Secretary of State and the devolved Administration Ministers can make supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions. We have brought them forward at the recent request of the devolved Administrations—that perhaps pre-empts the question as to why this was a recent request of the devolved Administrations.
The effect of these amendments is that the devolved Administration Ministers have the power to make supplementary and consequential provision to amend primary legislation, either UK or devolved, in all additional areas of the Bill where a legislative consent Motion is being sought.
This is not about filling any legislative gap or changing government policy. These are technical amendments which were needed to ensure that the devolved Administrations have the necessary powers to make such provisions, should it be required. The amendments reflect the slightly different powers each devolved Administration is taking in the Bill. For example, Clause 34, on agricultural tenancies, applies only to Wales.
Officials from the four Administrations have worked closely together on this issue to ensure that the scope of powers under Clause 50 provides all Ministers with the necessary powers, consistent with the devolution settlements. I am pleased the clause has been amended to satisfy Welsh, Scottish and DAERA Ministers. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is no longer speaking in this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of government amendments, which has been brought forward at the request of the devolved Administrations to give them the powers they each require, given their separate needs. I thank both Ministers for their patience and forbearance during this long process.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for that helpful clarification, and thank him very much for listening in Committee, when devolved issues were given a thorough airing. We certainly were made very much more aware of some of the issues and challenges that we will face on agriculture going forward, in trying to reach agreement between the devolved Administrations.
It was helpful that he clarified those famous words, “appropriate authority”, which seem to be peppered throughout all our legislation and which always leave us with the question of what the appropriate authority is, but he has very helpfully clarified that now. It was also helpful that he clarified that this was a recent request, which explains why this has come back at a fairly late stage.
I thank the Minister; he will be pleased to know I do not have any questions. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, as this is the end of Report stage, I would just like to thank both Ministers for their enormous patience and courteousness throughout the whole process. Although we did not always agree, I thought we disagreed with particular aplomb and understanding, so I thank them very much. I know that we will have the opportunity to make more formal thanks at a later stage. It has been a long process, and I think it is time to wrap up at this point.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I would just like to thank the two noble Baronesses for their very kind remarks and brief contributions to this debate. I wanted to thank them and all on the Front Bench, including my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and other noble Lords, for this Report stage of the Agriculture Bill. Our disagreements have always been civilised, and there are many things on which we can agree. I think these amendments are also important because they put into reality the very strong working relationship between Ministers and officials across the devolved Administrations.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1A) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in connection with—(a) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Wales,(b) section 34 and Schedule 3, so far as relating to Wales,(c) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Wales,(d) section 43 and Schedule 5,(e) section 44, and(f) section 49 and Schedule 7 so far as they apply in relation to Wales.(1B) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in the law of Scotland in connection with— (a) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Scotland, and(b) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Scotland.(1C) DAERA may by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in the law of Northern Ireland in connection with—(a) sections 31 and 32, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,(b) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,(c) section 45 and Schedule 6, and(d) section 49 and Schedule 7 so far as they apply in relation to Northern Ireland.(1D) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (1) containing provision which could be made—(a) by the Welsh Ministers under subsection (1A)(a) or (b) or (d) to (f),(b) by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (1B)(a), or(c) by DAERA under subsection (1C)(a), (c) or (d).(1E) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) containing provision which could be made—(a) by the Welsh Ministers under subsection (1A)(c),(b) by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (1B)(b), or(c) by DAERA under subsection (1C)(b),only if the Secretary of State has first consulted (respectively) the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers or DAERA.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
“(i) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Wales,(ia) section 34 and Schedule 3, so far as relating to Wales,(ib) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Wales,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
“(aa) the Scottish Ministers, for provision in connection with—(i) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Scotland,(ii) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Scotland, and”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
“(ai) sections 31 and 32, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,(bi) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(ia) giving financial assistance by the Secretary of State under section (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert new Clause (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is partly consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 43, line 29 and also secures that new Clause (Retained direct EU legislation) extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, by virtue of Clause 52(4).
“(3A) Section (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for new Clause (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) to extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(za) sections (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) and (Retained direct EU legislation);” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that new Clauses (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) and (Retained direct EU legislation) will come into force on the day on which the Act is passed.